Changing_Face_of

What is Morality?
2001

Good and evil are labels of human behavior, and do not exist outside of the human mind. That does not make evil "okay". Evil is still bad. But it is bad because we HUMANS think it is bad, NOT because some god says it is. Evil does not stem from the rejection of a belief in god. Most of the evil in this country is done by those who believe in god and the bible. The prisons are filled with believers, and hardly an agnostic among them. But I am not saying that there is no moral standard. I HAVE a moral standard. YOU HAVE a moral standard. On many points they are the same. On some they are different. You imagine yours was given to you by god. I realize that mine has been constructed by my upbringing, the influence that society has had on me, and my intellect.
During the course of life, circumstances will naturally arise which will require you to make moral choices. These situation will force you to consider the correctness of your actions. Since it is unlikely that you will be able to sit down and think about these things in a moment of intense pressure, nor is it possible that at that all times you will possess a rational and calm state of mind, it becomes necessary that you consider these things beforehand, in moments of mental composure.

Is an act immoral simply because there is a law against it? Most people think that murder is immoral, and there are laws against it, of course. But do the laws impose the morality, or do the laws merely enforce penalties for those members of our society who fail to recognize the immorality of murder? Certainly there exist laws that have nothing to do with morality, and there are immoral acts which are not illegal. What do you think? Is an act immoral because it goes against the beliefs of a particular doctrine or creed?
So much of what we consider immoral has been carried out by people of every belief system that it is inconsistent and dishonest to assert that morality is the exclusive possession of a select few or a chosen group. Most creeds of moral behavior reflect the needs and biases of the sect that invented them, and contain as much bad as good. In our modern society, people of religious beliefs, those that believe the bible, claim that they are more moral than those whom they call "godless". Yet this claim can neither be supported logically, nor statistically.
In truth, laws against murder and other crimes have existed ever since the dawn of civilization. Long before Moses allegedly came down from Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments, the people of ancient cultures such as China, Egypt and India had refined systems of laws. The reason that there have always been laws against murder is that most people object to being murdered. Similarly, there are laws against stealing because most people object to having their hard-earned property stolen from them. The sovereignty of the individual (in terms of physical safety, intellectual freedom, ownership of property, and personal rights) is the origin of laws and government.
After deep consideration on the subject, I feel that morality is derived from two things— consequences and compassion.
You must ask yourself: “What are the consequences of my actions, and will someone be harmed by them?” Have you developed compassion for others, so that you are not insensitive to the pain they feel? Consequence-based morality seems to me to be the most consistent and honest system.
Why be moral? I cannot be any other way. I have developed my mind to work within this framework. I have been raised to have compassion— the ability to see through another’s eyes, to place myself in their position, and I consider the consequences of my actions. I also hold people responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Will everyone be this way? Of course not. For those who have no compassion, and do not care about the consequences of their actions, we have laws, police, courts and prisons, as well as the right to protect ourselves.
Who among us has never written a word that came to be held in regret? With each word I give shape, even as the ink flows onto paper, I consider with some trepidation how what I write will be, in coming years, perceived by the very mind which gave it form. Do I doubt my own thoughts? No. But I know I am an incomplete man, and that like all of us, I shall undoubtably change in the years to come. That certainly has come to be the case. In this article I will describe some changes I have experienced in some of my ideas.
What causes us to hold false ideas? That is a very important question to ask yourself. I found that I once held false ideas because they offered comfort, and sounded good. That is to say, they were ideologically appealing-- they represented what I wanted to be true. But discovered that they were unrealistic, and when I had gotten over the initial appeal, I sat and thought deeply about them. I discovered a few things about myself in the process. I realized that I refuse to hold onto ideas just because they make me feel good. An idea has got to conform to what I know to be true. I was guilty of ignoring the implications and consequences of what I believed, just because I liked what the ideas represented. I suspended my skepticism, and didn't think too deeply about it, because doing so might disturb my view of the world.
One of these ideas I wrote about several years ago was that there is an absolute moral compass-- that deep down inside of us, no matter where we come from or when we lived, we as Human Beings always knew what was the right thing to do (even if we chose not to do it). After much thinking, I now realize that this idea is utterly false- and it is very important to understand why.
Here is what I wrote:

"We operate on a set of principles that we call Universal Justice. One way to understand what is meant by this is to visualize a closed room of ten people. Ask them all which direction is north, and you will see fingers pointing in ten different directions. But pull out a compass and you'll see immediately in what direction true north lies. Peoples' opinions about where north is do not affect in any way the real direction of true north. Universal Justice is this way also. It exists outside of human consciousness. It is exhibited in nature. Animals do not kill out of malice or greed, but only act out of survival and propagation.
"There are things you know are right and things you know are wrong, regardless of the current circumstances or your opinions. Right and wrong don't change depending on what's going on. If you act on Universal Justice, you will be the defender of what is right."

I must admit-- that phrase has moral and ideological appeal. There are things about it that feel good. But there are deep problems with the concept, and some of the statements I made are just not true. In fact there are instances of animals killing out of greed and malice (primates, of course-- our closest relatives). The concept of justice exists nowhere outside of the human mind. The ideas of wrong and right are our labels, attached to behavior which we individually judge to be either beneficial or harmful. Most of the time, all of us who live in a particular society agree on what is "evil", such as premeditated murder; other topics are not so clear.
To discover the truth of a human concept, you should first look at who originated it, and why. I had read about the idea of an absolute human moral standard: something inside all humans which tells us what is right and wrong, and transcends all time and culture. You have to admit, it sounds good. But the source of the concept is theological ideology, and the purpose of the concept is to be used as a stepping stone toward a universal morality which is externally imposed by some authoritative god. (After all, they would say, such a universal moral standard must have come from somewhere).
But in truth, there is no such universal moral standard within the minds of all humans. The concept of Human Rights, something that we cherish and protect in our time, is a very modern idea-- embraced only in this century. Even today, in many countries the idea of Human Rights is still being resisted. Consider a few points that support this:
Only a couple hundred years ago, slavery was a well-established, institutionalized tradition. It was supported by both governments and religions all over the world, and especially in the U.S. The bible certainly condoned it, and nowhere condemned it. Virtually no one questioned it-- it was just a part of life for thousands of years. All humans were not viewed as equal beings: some were less than human, and fit only for slavery. Only through the brave efforts of a few individuals, acting on their own personal conscience, were the opinions of the masses changed. Now, most of us are appalled at the injustice and inhumanity of enslaving another person. But think about this: if you were born 300 years ago, you wouldn't think there was anything at all wrong with slavery! Your so-called "moral compass" would have told you that it was a proper part of life. This is evidence against the universal moral compass.
There are other examples which you can think of yourself. Here are more: Women have been traditionally denied the same rights as men for thousands of years. This is easy to see. Many reasons are given for this inequality, but basically it boils down to the fact that men have the physical strength to subjugate them. It is a simple case of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Only in the last few decades have we realized that it is not fair to deny women equality just because we can.
The same goes for racial equality. Most of us today realize that it is unfair to deny rights and fair treatment to someone based solely on the amount of pigment in their skin. But there is still a large percentage of people in this country and around the world who truly believe that it is not only fair to discriminate and hate, but that it is absolutely the right thing to do. Hate groups abound in the U.S., and their numbers are growing. Do these people have a "moral compass"? I'm sure they think so-- and that theirs points toward White Supremecy as the most moral of all goals. Nazi Germany is a classic example of this-- where people did horrendous things and completely believed that they were acting correctly, in accordance with morality. More evidence against the "universal moral compass".
For thousands of years, the idea of divinely-chosen kings and queens was the way people allowed themselves to be ruled. They believed that God chose their kings to rule, and by that divine authority the word of the monarch was not to be questioned. But over the past few centuries, we have realized that there is no such thing as divinely chosen rulers. People in countries all over the world realized that they should have a say in how they are governed. It began with the United States, whose constitution states that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, thereby robbing heaven of its trade of setting up monarchies. Fueled by the pen of Thomas Paine in his famous pamphlet Common Sense, we realized that a monarch who sets up his family in perpetual preference to all others, so that his children will rule ours forever, is an immoral system.
Nowdays, we would be appalled to learn that our military forces routinely kill large numbers of defenseless women and children as a matter of policy. But history is filled with examples of warfare being conducted in just this way. The bible contains dozens of instances where the Israellites, under Moses and Joshua, coldly butchered defenseless citizens (not soldiers) in their conquests. Their instructions, straight from Yaweh, frequently contained the command to execute women, the elderly, children and babies (even the animals). Dozens of towns were attacked in this way. Consider this: if you were born as an Israelite soldier 3000 years ago, you would have engaged in the butchering of defenseless women, children and babies right along with your fellow soldiers, and you would have thought that there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, you would have considered it your moral duty. More evidence against "absolute moral standards."
Christians claim that there are absolute moral standards. Yet in discussions which involve biblical slaughter, they are the first ones to claim that "times were different then", and that under the circumstances at the time, all the killing was necessary. So it turns out that the conservative Christians are the real moral relativists.
They also claim that God has placed within all humans, regardless of religious beliefs, a set of moral standards. But if this were true, why then do even Christians have irreconcilable differences on such issues as abortion, capital punishment, the right to end your own life, polygamy, women's rights, gay rights, etc. Around the world, opinions on these issues are extremely diverse. Is God confused? How could all this be, if He placed moral standards in all of us? Or is it just that everyone else is wrong, and you're right? And God just happens to agree with you?
At one time, hundreds of thousands of people were hanged and burned alive for being accused of practicing witchcraft. It was considered immoral. There are biblical laws against it, demanding the punishment of death. Now, practicing witchcraft in the U.S. is a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Constitution, witchcraft and Christianity are equal.
I should pause at this point to say that I think if it weren't for the U.S. Constitution, the idea Human Rights and personal freedoms would probably not exist as we know them today. Only after the creation of the U.S. Constitution, "The Great Experiment", did other nations enact laws to protect human rights. Our Constitution was a direct result of the European Enlightenment, developed by the personal conscience of certain humanistic individuals. The Constitution was not the work of Christian hands. Were that true, it would look mighty different.
Another way to measure the truth of a concept is to follow it through to its logical conclusions. If there really was a universal human moral standard, then there would be no wars, no crimes against humanity, no need for handguns, no need for police-- you would live in a safe world. But the world is filled with people who think they have the right to take what is yours because they feel that they deserve it (or they have decided that you have been too lucky and you have more than them), or they feel that they have the right to take their anger out on anyone who gets in their way, or that they have the right to attack or kill you because you think differently than they do.
Morality can only spring from compassion, or empathy-- being able to place yourself in another's position. When we fail to do this, we cease to see the other person as equal, as human. Consider for a moment the Nazis, who considered the Jews inhuman. Consider the U.S. slaveowners and traders-- they also regarded blacks as inhuman property. And consider U.S. policy during the 19th century toward Native Americans-- another case of looking at a race of people as something less than human, allowing theft of their nation and murder by the thousands. During his presidency, Teddy Roosevelt said that "The only good indian is a dead indian." Imagine today a U.S. president making such a racist, ignorant and offensive statement! He would be impeached.
If people are good toward each other, it's because they care and have compassion, not because some God or other told them to. If people are cruel and hurtful to each other, it is because they are selfish, self-centered and probably have psychological problems.
I have come to the inescapable conclusion that human moral standards are shaped by the current beliefs of the community, and that the reason they are different today is that a few individuals took steps to change them. And they aren't finished changing. It is up to you to establish correct personal ethics for yourself-- you're not born with them.
I have shown you how I came to question one of my perceptions, run it through some mental tests, and then rejected it. It is important to question your beliefs, so that you do not become trapped in an incorrect view of the world. And it is important to question what other people tell you, and come to your own conclusions.
Thomas Jefferson was our 3rd President, and the writer of the Declaration of Independence and co-author of the U.S. Constitution. Here is what he said about questioning things:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

I have included below some portions of correspondence with Christians regarding the nature of morality.

>>BTW if good and evil are really nothing more than labels then why is killing not acceptable to you?
I know the difference between right and wrong. I didn't say "good and evil are really nothing more than labels." You have twisted what I said. Good and evil are labels of human behavior, and do not exist outside of the human mind. That does not make evil "okay". Evil is still bad. But it is bad because we HUMANS think it is bad, NOT because some god says it is.
>>BTW you can't claim there is no good and evil.
Good and evil are human labels for human behavior.
>>There has to be an absolute truth otherwise it would be perfectly acceptable for me to just walk into your huse steal all your belongings and kill you.
That is the only reason you don't kill people? Don't you know the basic difference between right and wrong, apart from theology? Didn't your parents teach you that? Have you no compassion for other people?

Slavery and morality:

> You say there are no moral absolutes, a defense you give is slavery, slavery was accepted everywhere 200 years ago and it was only challenged reletively recently. This looks like a shift in moral standards, it certainly is not. The slave code of the Confederate States of America said that "a slave is not a man". Thus, to them it was no different than having a horse or donkey working for them. If anyone would have suggested using white people as slaves the idea would be heavily opposed even by the confederates, why? because they thought white people were men, and blacks were not.

But do you think they could HONESTLY look at a black person, who has the same shape as a white person, eyes, mouth, brain, speech, memory, feelings, etc., and claim that they were NOT human? I absolutely do not. I think they used that excuse as a rationalization to justify their actions. Their actions were motivated originally from profit. From the first sign of slavery in the Colonies, the real issue had always been money. Did you know that American Indians were also made to be slaves? Slavery was in decline in the South prior to 1820, because it was not profitable. It took too long to seperate the cotton from the seed. But after the invention of the Cotton Gin, production could be increased 100 times. Slaveowners could make huges profits by not having to pay wages. Even in the North, the main reason that people didn't want slavery to be allowed in new states is that they, the Northerners, could not compete economically with the southerners for similar goods because the Northerners had to pay wages and the Southerners didn't. They knew they were trading in human beings. The slaveowners were not stupid. I have read where they referred to them as inferior people, but people nonetheless. I have NEVER heard them speak of blacks no better than horses or donkeys. They could tell the difference between a man and a horse. They knew what they were doing when they broke up families on the auction block, and sold babies from the arms of mothers. Their greed was their primary motivation, and they didn't care about the harm they inflicted on other human beings. Slavery is EVIL. Plain and simple-- it always was, and it always will be. Even IF you honestly regard another group of people as "inferiors", is it ever morally justifiable to enslave them? No. Under no circumstances.

> > This is not a shift in morals, we have just realized that black people are every bit as much human as white people, thus slavery becomes wrong.

Your explanation fails in another aspect because not all slaves throughout history were black.

>>As for ancient slavery, it was different then, it was not based on race or religion.

It was "different then"? When people who defend the bible say "It was different then" they are actually arguing for the same thing I am... that morality changes over time. Your statement is not true. The Isrealites took slaves from surrounding nations. The people of those nations were not Jews, so they could be enslaved. Read Levitucus 25:44.

>> The way you became a slave was either you sold yourself into slavery because you had no other way to survive,

I think this is called "employment". It is different from involuntary slavery. Also, according to the bible, parents could sell their children into bondage.

>> or slaves were people that had been conquered in war, it would have been like prisoners of war, there is nothing wrong with keeping prisoners of war, the United States does this I believe (i may be wrong).

That is completely different. U.S. prisoners of war are RELEASED after the war is over. We do not keep them around to plow our fields and sell their children. That would be considered IMMORAL, and our citizens would never stand for it. BUT, the Isrealites had no problem enslaving their captured enemies. Thus you can see the change in moral attitudes over time.

> >So the issue of slavery has nothing to do with moral beliefs.

It has everything to do with it! The fact that you can say that stuns me. It shows the lengths that people will go to to rationalize their belief systems. What is generally considered moral is different now than in the past. That statement cannot be argued.