Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
Question 109
As an atheist what sort of moral laws would you endorse?
- It is my opinion that there are no moral absolutes, that each society (in its entirety, not just the "upper crust") has to define a set of moral standards that allows it to progress, that encourages people to contribute to that society and ensure its long-term prosperity.
People have to be protected from harm to their life, limb, and "soul", their achievements (material and intellectual) have to be protected,
and they have to be protected from being taken advantage of.
Moral standards require that "taking" is based on informed and willful "giving", and that "giving" cannot be extorted or induced by means of fraud. This applies to goods as well as actions. A simple Lackmus test
for individuals' conduct could be to ask what would happen if everybody
did it, or most people did it. Would it impair the quality of living of society as a whole? For example, if everybody went around murdering and stealing, would it impair the quality of living of society as a whole?
If everybody looked at pictures of naked people in magazines, --- you
get the idea.
To make it even more complicated, one has to consider actions whose morality would be doubtful if considered on their own, but appear in an entirely different light if seen in context, especially if they are the response to someone else's "evil-doing". Of course society wouldn't
benefit if women went around kicking men into the groin wherever they encountered them. However, society would benefit greatly if everybody
who *attacked* a woman got a swift kick to where it hurts most.
On top of individuals' conduct, one has to consider what actions society
is allowed to take to deal with destructive elements of society, i.e.
moral standards in law enforcement and the justice system. Morality is
a complicated issue, full of relatives and special cases. That's why the law is so complicated. If I tried to be exhaustive, I'd sit here for another week typing and you'd still find holes in my argument. For that reason, I'll stop and send this off now... :-) (Matthias Weiss)
- One should strive to make society as a whole happier and smarter. Truth and exploration are related to making society smarter. In addition, protecting animals, the environment and reducing the probability of destroying the world are good. Fairness is good. The legal system should
be based on these goals and legal laws derive from moral laws.
(Michael Alexander #18)
- Morality is both personal and subjective, but for a society to
function effectively there need to be some basic guidelines. The golden rule seems to work quite well in my opinion. Not doing things that harm others seems to be the best way to ensure that everyone is able to live
in peace and harmony.
The sort of moral laws I would endorse would be what we basically have
now. Anything that's going to hurt another person or infringe on his or
her rights shouldn't be tolerated. I think the main question to be asked is: "Is anyone being hurt?" If no one is, a la prostitution, drugs, and
sex between consenting adults, there's no need for a law against it. (Anna #1490)
- Boy, that's a loaded question. It's all well and good to endorse
a law that I might deem "moral", but I have a problem endorsing any morality on anyone who is not me. I mean, what *I* think is moral might
not be moral for you. I think this might be one reason why we atheists
have such problems with our loudmouthed xian neighbors. The xians think they've cornered the market on morality and we all should live by
*their* morality, and I think many of us might have a problem with that. For that reason, I'm not sure I could endorse any moral law, regardless
of intent. I wouldn't presume to dictate how others should live. If it
were my children, yes, I would preach a moral code, but that's the only segment of the population I'd feel comfortable endorsing morality to.
(Dan Chaney #1144)
- There has to be some way of telling what is relevant to morality and what is not. I cannot ensure, nor can anyone else, that some dipshit
isn't going to come along one day after I don't have total control
anymore and say it's law for a woman's privates to be sewn up until marriage because it's moral. Before any law is legislated, there has to
be a proper constitution that in effect seperates universal morality
from the belief systems of some and rules out the latter. Our present constitution does a decent hack of it, but it could be rewritten much better and actually enforced (seperation of church and state? not in
kansas anymore...) (Hendrix Fan)
- The New Ten Commandments:
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill, period.
Neither shalt thou steal.
Neither shalt thou break any contract made in good faith.
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against others.
Neither shalt thou enter the circle of vengeance.
Teach thy children well.
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
Thou shalt clean up any mess thy maketh.
Don't hit. (chibiabos)
- Morality cannot be legislated. As a system of ethics, however, it
seems to me that the Buddhist makes the most sense. While the xtians suggest that we "do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves",
that doesn't necessarily mean kindness. Perhaps the ultra-fundie WANTS
to submit to hours of buybull readings daily. Perhaps the maso-chist
WANTS to be whipped or beaten. The Buddhist philosophy suggests,
however, that we do unto others AS THEY WANT TO BE DONE TO. That seems
much kinder and more sensible to me, and something that I could, in conscience, endorse. *NOTE* There are still potential exceptions... (MagyckMe #554)
- Moral laws? Oh, certainly none. Ethical principals, perhaps. If I
were to pick a guiding principal for myself, or even a social/governmental system, it would probably be the last two lines of the Wiccan Rede: "An harm ye none, do what thou wilt." (SarceN #1174)
- It is the last line of a poem called "The Wiccan Rede", shown in full below. Attach it to the meme "Don't do to others anything you wouldn't like to have done to you" and you have the PKZIPed version of a workable moral code.
The trick lies in popularising it and actually living by it.
"The Wiccan Rede --
Bide the Wiccan Laws we must,
In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust.
Live and Let live,
Fairly take and fairly give.
Cast the circle thrice about
To keep the evil spirits out.
To bind the spell every time
Let the spell be spake in rhyme.
Soft of eye and light of touch,
Speak little, listen much.
Deosil go by waxing moon,
Chanting out the Witches' Rune.
Widdershins go by waning moon,
Chanting out the baneful rune.
When the Lady's moon is new,
Kiss the hand to her times two.
When the moon rides at her peak,
Then your heart's desire seek.
Heed the North wind's mighty gale,
Lock the door and drop the sail.
When the wind comes from the South,
Love will kiss thee on the mouth.
When the wind blows from the West,
Departed souls will have no rest.
When the wind blows from the East,
Expect the new and set the feast.
Nine woods in the cauldron go,
Burn them fast and burn them slow.
Elder be the Lady's tree.
Burn it not or cursed you'll be.
When the wheel begins to turn,
Let the Beltain fires burn,
When the wheel turns to Yule,
Light the log, and the Horned One rules.
Heed ye flower, bush and Tree,
By the Lady, Blessed Be.
Where the rippling waters go,
Cast a stone and truth you'll know.
When ye have a true need,
Hearken not to other's greed.
With a fool no season spend,
Lest ye be counted as a friend.
Merry meet and merry part,
Bright the cheeks, and warm the heart.
Mind the Three Fold law you should.
Three times bad and three times good.
When misfortune is enow,
Wear thy blue star on thy brow.
True in Love ever be,
Lest thy lover's false to thee.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill
An Ye Harm None, do what ye will!" (Erikc #2)
- None whatsoever. I don't think that laws should be based on morality, which changes from
individual to individual; I think that they should instead be based on ethics. Morality
dictates the behavior of the individual within a society, without regard to whether or not
that behavior affects the welfare of others. It is an individual set of rules that is
determined by the individual (who may or may not choose to emulate the morality of others).
As such, the state has no business regulating morality. Ethics, on the other hand, dictates
the relationship between an individual and society; it detemines how a person interacts with
those around him. It pertains directly and solely to the question of whether a person's actions
have the possibility of unduly affecting those around him/her. As such, the state (which exists as the result of a social contract among people
within a given society) is compelled, by its very purpose for existence, to regulate ethics
and individual compliance thereof. (Michael J. Nash #1651)
Click here to return to master question page.
