Good without God: Secular humanism and morality

March 21, 2007 7:50pm CST
Are moral standards absolute, or relative? This article breaks down morality in terms of motives, actions, and outcomes. It also argues that morality is separate from religion and exists as a function of psychological and sociological well-being. What do you think about the nature of morality? Full article: http://www.helium.com/tm/215138 Draven the Respectful Atheist http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
2 people like this
3 responses
@Latrivia (2888)
• United States
22 Mar 07
I believe moral standards are relative. Possible evidence of this is that morals change with time. A few centuries ago, marrying and having children with someone between the ages of 13-17 was completely acceptable. Now anyone over the age of 18 who touches anyone younger than 17 or 16 is deemed a perverted monster and incarcerated. Also, morality varies from culture to culture. What's acceptable in some places is unacceptable in others. Also, my theory on morality is that it doesn't truly exist outside the realm of human thought. You don't see animals getting all bothered over the things humans are bothered over. I believe morality evolved with humans. As our thought processes became more complex, we began thinking up different types of conduct to keep everyone under control.
2 people like this
22 Mar 07
The example regarding acceptable marrying age is apt and a great illustration of the concept. I don't believe morality started with humans, see other posts with links to evidence of morality in other species. I can agree that our sense of morality is much more complex than any other species we know of. Draven the Respectful Atheist http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
2 people like this
• United States
24 Mar 07
Our sense of morality is by far more complex because many spend so much time thinking of ways to subvert the current morality trends. So with each subversion we have to cut and paste our morality issues back together in a suitable manner to address that subversion.
1 person likes this
• Thailand
22 Mar 07
Morality is separate from religion. It is most likely an evolutionary adaptation that made it poseble to live in communal and cooperative groups. There are new findings that indicate that it is not a solely human trait. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.hthl?em&ex=1174622400&en=340b1c2f848ea62f&ei=5087%0A
1 person likes this
• Thailand
22 Mar 07
That didn't work. I sure wish I could cut and past. I will try one more time. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ref=science My constant complainant about computers. " The damn thing won't do what I want it to, only what I tell it to."
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Mar 07
I think morality came first, without morals there would be no foundation for religion. Essentially religion is the guilt complex for morality enforcement. And by my way of thinking morality is relative because no two situations will ever be the same. Therefore enforcement would be a variable. Morality can be enforced only as far as all parties involved recoginize the same issues.
22 Mar 07
It seems your views are very similar to mine, sumofalltears. Draven the Respectful Atheist http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
1 person likes this