The basis of morality - Part One: Why don't people do bad things?
Many religious people - especially Christians - claim that their sense of morality is endowed by God. They have the belief that if a person does not believe in God, then that person has no fear of divine punishment, and will rape, murder, and steal. These are actually two points of view: a person could believe in God, yet still rape, murder, and steal. But when person recants, then he will feel the slate is wiped clean and divine punishment will not be meted out in the afterlife.
This brings up an important point. Those who believe in a "judging God" act morally either because (a) they think that they have been endowed with morality, making it an integral part of their being, or (b) they fear being punished in the afterlife for immoral behavior, so they are coerced into being moral.
What motivates those who do not believe in an afterlife - and, by extension, a God to punish them in an afterlife - to act morally? As above, there are those atheists who act morally either because (a) they believe morality comes to them naturally, making it an integral part of their being, or (b) they fear being punished by society, and so are coerced into being moral.
The atheists and the theists who fall into category (a) are the non-threatening members of society. Even though their beliefs in the origin of their morality differs, they both believe their moralities are integral parts of their being, as inseparable from their behavior as their heads are from their bodies.
It is the atheists and theists who fall into category (b) - those coerced into acting moral - which society needs to keep its eye on. Atheists in group (b) may at some point say, "Screw it ... I'm going to do what I want, when I want, to whom I want. There's no God to punish me, and once I'm dead there's no guilt I have to feel or lake of fire for me to burn in." The God-believers in group (b) may at some point say, "Screw it ... I'm going to do what I want, when I want, to whom I want. I'll just ask God for forgiveness later. Or, maybe it's God's will that I do what I want. Because I'm a Godly person, then by definition I cannot do what God doesn't want me to do."
Which of the category (b) - coerced to be moral - groups is more dangerous to society? In my opinion, it is the "Permission slip from God -or- Get out of Hell through forgiveness" theist group which is more dangerous. At least the atheist knows he is alone and the sole one responsible for his actions. He has his inner voice - his conscience - to argue with him about the social consequences of his actions. The theist, on the other hand, thinks he is acting in concert with, or with the tacit permission of, God. The theist is part of a gang engaging in group-think: "Since God has not struck me down, what I am doing has his approval." A dangerous basis of morality, indeed.
Coming next: Part 2 - Why do people do good things?
This brings up an important point. Those who believe in a "judging God" act morally either because (a) they think that they have been endowed with morality, making it an integral part of their being, or (b) they fear being punished in the afterlife for immoral behavior, so they are coerced into being moral.
What motivates those who do not believe in an afterlife - and, by extension, a God to punish them in an afterlife - to act morally? As above, there are those atheists who act morally either because (a) they believe morality comes to them naturally, making it an integral part of their being, or (b) they fear being punished by society, and so are coerced into being moral.
The atheists and the theists who fall into category (a) are the non-threatening members of society. Even though their beliefs in the origin of their morality differs, they both believe their moralities are integral parts of their being, as inseparable from their behavior as their heads are from their bodies.
It is the atheists and theists who fall into category (b) - those coerced into acting moral - which society needs to keep its eye on. Atheists in group (b) may at some point say, "Screw it ... I'm going to do what I want, when I want, to whom I want. There's no God to punish me, and once I'm dead there's no guilt I have to feel or lake of fire for me to burn in." The God-believers in group (b) may at some point say, "Screw it ... I'm going to do what I want, when I want, to whom I want. I'll just ask God for forgiveness later. Or, maybe it's God's will that I do what I want. Because I'm a Godly person, then by definition I cannot do what God doesn't want me to do."
Which of the category (b) - coerced to be moral - groups is more dangerous to society? In my opinion, it is the "Permission slip from God -or- Get out of Hell through forgiveness" theist group which is more dangerous. At least the atheist knows he is alone and the sole one responsible for his actions. He has his inner voice - his conscience - to argue with him about the social consequences of his actions. The theist, on the other hand, thinks he is acting in concert with, or with the tacit permission of, God. The theist is part of a gang engaging in group-think: "Since God has not struck me down, what I am doing has his approval." A dangerous basis of morality, indeed.
Coming next: Part 2 - Why do people do good things?
posted by batguano at 8:51 PM
<< Home