What is "morality"?

[CSharp]

Actually I said that the person you described is moral, even righteous, and his act is moral.

I didn't say that he is holy.
...

My tendency is to equate being holy in a human with being close to God in the sense that a human does what he thinks God wants him to be and to do.

With what do you equate being "righteous", in a human?

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

With what do you equate being "righteous", in a human?

The habit of alacrity in doing moral acts.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[CSharp]

The habit of alacrity in doing moral acts.

Susma Rio Sep

How does a moral act differ from what one's God wants one to do? And how does habitually and alacritously choosing the moral path differ from being what one's God wants one to be?

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

How does a moral act differ from what one's God wants one to do? And how does habitually and alacritously choosing the moral path differ from being what one's God wants one to be?

I don't know how other God-believers proceed. On my own part I try my best to imagine what God would want me to do, using my intelligence and consulting with more knowledgeable people and people with my best interests in their heart and mind, and also examing my motives very detailedly.

In most routines of day to day life I just use common use, being on guard against lapsing into self-interest objectives that might hurt other people even just emotionally.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[CSharp]

In most routines of day to day life I just use common use, being on guard against lapsing into self-interest objectives that might hurt other people even just emotionally.

Susma Rio Sep

So, in your opinion, is morality avoiding self-interests and not hurting other people?

And if so, do you perceive these things as moral only because you believe this is what God wants us to do? i.e. do you perceive any benefit, aside from pleasing one's God, in acting morally?

 

[louis]

spiritual conceptualisation

Actually, I am inclined to agree. I suggested the "elemental" morality of herding animals in an effort to show a basic inclination demonstrated throughout creation. But the question skips the advent of rational thought, perhaps the singular most important step to raise humans above the level of the purely animal.The sciences have yet to demonstrate at what point rational thought began. I am inclined to believe that threshold was passed with the assistance of outside intervention.

If ancient humans were capable of spiritual conceptualization, as seems to be the general consensus, what gave them the mental capacity to make such conceptions possible? Was it a "happy accident" of adaptation? Or was it from some instance of intervention long lost to us and unquantifiable? Intuitively, I am inclined to lean towards the latter explanation, but I cannot support it.

Thank you for the support. This question may never be answered to our satisfaction within the span of our sojourn in this form on this world.

From Louis...

Can you spell out just what you mean by "spiritual
conceptualisation" ?
I perceive a "concept" as something invented and produced from the human mind - to be specific : the RATIONAL part of the mind. Yes, the non-rational
part produces things too, but they are not coherent
enough to qualify as "concepts".
Or do you mean things like PERSONIFICATIONS -
such as "Mother Nature" or "Old Man Winter" ? -
abstract symbols of real things.
When people claim to "find God", have they really
found only a personification of their own ideas
about God ?

 

[louis]

hard wired

I think you've hit a proverbial nail on the head there - indeed, self interest could destroy us, but at our biological heart is an animal hard-wired to exist in social groups.

That socio-biological hard wiring means that as an ape we will ultimately form a group consensus on what is considered right and wrong within our own social environment - and hence we have the start of a sense of culture: not in our artistic expressions, but instead the foundations upon which such expressions can be deemed acceptable or no.

And that would be precisely why the human animal has formed so many different cultural sets on this earth - precisely because the nature of the morality such societies are built upon is entirely relative, simply sharing the common factor of looking after the interests of the larger group.

From Louis....
I merely wish to point out that not all of us are "hard wired" to fit into groups.
For example, an AUTISTIC child is "hard wired" to think he's the only sentient being in existence - he experiences
everything around him as just OBJECTS.
I'm not quite autistic myself, but I am a LONER and the
current thinking is to classify that as a degree of autism
( something called "Asperger's Syndrom" ).
If I obeyed my "hard wiring", I would think only of myself - "right" means whatever I like - "wrong" means
whatever I don't like. It is my common sense that
reminds me that other people do matter and their likes
and dislikes have just as much value as my own.

 

[Quahom1]

From Louis....
I merely wish to point out that not all of us are "hard wired" to fit into groups.
For example, an AUTISTIC child is "hard wired" to think he's the only sentient being in existence - he experiences
everything around him as just OBJECTS.
I'm not quite autistic myself, but I am a LONER and the
current thinking is to classify that as a degree of autism
( something called "Asperger's Syndrom" ).
If I obeyed my "hard wiring", I would think only of myself - "right" means whatever I like - "wrong" means
whatever I don't like. It is my common sense that
reminds me that other people do matter and their likes
and dislikes have just as much value as my own.

Good day Louis, Brian,

To be a loner, is not the same as autism. Being a loner is a softwire thing, it is a choice. autism is a hardwire thing, only the lock to the cage is on the inside, not the outside. I spent years working with austistics (as a grounder), and I can tell you they are in a cage. It may be of their own making, or not, but it is a cage none the less. The only truth is that the autistic holds the key to the cage, and no one else.

The autistic sense of morality is shockingly simple. There is right, and there is wrong, but there is no grey area.

An autistic never does "wrong", only retreats, deeper and deeper into the safe zone. (this is the autistic view).

To be a loner is a choice. There may be autistic tendencies, but then what human does not have neuroticies to contend with?

I spent a week in a "camp" (shelter) for austistics in California. I met the most amazing people. One young lady comes to mind...she had knarled fingers from arthritus (at age 21), and her life span was about 25. She could not read, write, nor speak in any coherent fashion, but get her on the piano...and listen to an angel play. Humm a few bars of a popular song, and she would finish with the most wonderful accompaniment you ever heard.

Her smile at you giving her data (she could understand), reflected in her music. When people around her began to argue, she would play the piano harder, louder until the arguing stopped or, she couldn't win, so she would stop and retreat, often for hours or even days.

Bottom line is in my opinion, we are all "hardwired" into the truth about life. The more free we are with our bodies and minds, the farther we are from the truth, because of choice.

Choice, our greatest asset, and our greatest detriment.

my two cents

v/r

Q

 

[Agha]

Now I Know Wat Is Morality . But Can Any One Agree On My Point That "religion Provide The Absolute Basis Of Morality"

 

[Quahom1]

Now I Know Wat Is Morality . But Can Any One Agree On My Point That "religion Provide The Absolute Basis Of Morality"

Perhaps morality provides the absolute basis for religion...

v/r

Q

 

[alexa]

Hello Agha and welcome to CR !

About your question, we had a very, very, very long debate not long ago.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1360

And my answer to your question is no. If you'll have the patience to go quickly through "Morality within evolution" thread, you'll see why. Enjoy.

 

[earl]

It is an interesting thing to speculate upon the basis to morality-how much is nature, how much nurture-cultural or otherwise. Certainly, moral standrards may vary place to place & person to person. But, interestingly, most religions seem to share essentially the same morals-does this make it innate to human nature? I believe empathy is the foundation for all morality, (in fact think all moral standards seem to boil down to variations on Jesus' theme re loving thy neighbor), and research suggests tha even infants display a rudimentary form of empathy. Like the Buddhist take on ethics or morality- ethics is 1 of 3 trainings in assisting one to transform out of a truly "self"-ish view. Their point is their ethical standsrds are the natural innate ways that enlightened people will act and for the rest of us, (99.9999%) of humanity, holding ourselves to those standards are wonderful ways to train our minds to increasingly let go ofthat "self," until we, too, are simply innately who we are; i.e., morality is both good for us & for others. Take care, Earl

 

[InLove]

Peace to all here!

Morality, to me, is respect and love toward God, whom I believe is Love, and also the extension of those things to other people and all of His Creation. I do not believe that one can truly and completely exist without the other.

Seems like I need to write more, but that is about it!

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Satanist]

I define morality as code of behavior or a code of thinking.
I separate it from the things that people percieve as good or evil while influensed by their morality.

In short it is a system that varies with each person.
Arguable no system of though is morally lesser or higher,
instead it's just diffent forms of morality.
It is just change and differense.
Since it is a system it makes people wonder about their relation to cosmos and other persons but then only peace is to understand that we make our own moralites.
We make them according to individual intelligence or the according to the persons that matter most to us.
Morality is about perfecting the benifits that the person values most.

A system not intentions or anything flexible, such things should be ethic.
Morality is hard and cold while Ethics are chaotic and paradoxal.

It has nothing to do with who much a person is loved,how intelligent that person is or how social you are.
All innate qualities that we can rely that is not the result of consciously following something are ethics.

It is the rules and the code of beheavour that matters.

A person who naturally fits anyones idea of a good person is a ethical person but the person who consciouly though he was good had morality.

To believe in "Goodness" i not morality unless you have rules about exactly goodness is but is ethic.

Morality is not in it self about right or wrong but it can be about right or wrong
or about religion or anything
.

For example the egyptian morality focused on a way to control and accept all things as various levels of ability and weakness.
It focused on hard law and all relevantwas in the laws of a society
that were pragmatical and mechanical.
So there were no evil motivations, just the greater Good of society. The meaning of the equivalent of "evil" is downplayed in a society
where the positive is percieved as standard reoccuring state of reality.

They believed that all moraly failiures were due to stupidity(as moraly defined) or pragmatic incompetence of some sort.
In contrast many today consider materialism the source of moral failure.
The egyptian morality reasoned that society was the sole source of materialism and controled through it.Therefore it wasn't a individualistic motivitation and not egoism.

A wise, skilled person were supposed to automatically contribute and obey society out of common sense.
The criminals weren't evil but they sure were hated and brutally punished.
There were no guilt or confession in egyptian morality
but there were other forms of conscience in form of belief in brutal punishment or reward in the aftelive.
A conscience that believed in worldly and spiritual punishment
since the material world including the economical, sexual or any other motivation was build on moral principes that punnished all offenders
which was re-enforced by the fact they believed that society was runned by a living God.

 

[Satanist]

I should add that my own morality is ethical egoism according to the principes
that all social, spiritual and material needs are selfish needs.
Egoism is the thirst for personal positive experience in our perception without caring for others perceptions if we do not understand them.
By expanding our perceptions into other persons that are included in our needs becouse they are similar to us we also expands and handle over all the benifits.
we culminate in a more perfect and until we will one with our surrounding and eventually become God.
Only by isolation and controled contact with those who differs from ourself
we avoid conflict and find peace.

Unselfishness leads to kompromise which leads to inperfection
which leads to destuction.

So
Earl, could you please notice of it in regard of your speculation that
there is universal human morality.

And add that a inborn human ethic is not morality since it would just be instinctive or pure pragmatism.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I should add that my own morality is ethical egoism according to the principes
that all social, spiritual and material needs are selfish needs.
Egoism is the thirst for personal positive experience in our perception without caring for others perceptions if we do not understand them.
By expanding our perceptions into other persons that are included in our needs becouse they are similar to us we also expands and handle over all the benifits.

How is that fundamentally different than any other "morality"? From what do you derive this sense of obligation to reign in your egoism? Isn't this just another way of being an "improver of mankind"?

 

[Satanist]

How is that fundamentally different than any other "morality"? From what do you derive this sense of obligation to reign in your egoism? Isn't this just another way of being an "improver of mankind"?

Of course this is another way of being "improver of mankind"
but isn't not different and is there a fundament in morialities?

Is "improvement of mankind" really the fundament
or is it just a broad definition?
I will not say I am sure about the answer becouse I sare the typical fear that satanist have, the fear of "morality".

I think there is a diffence, feel free to continue expresing whether or not it is fundamental.

Most moralities we know in the 1st world disencourage many forms of "improvement"
other than the accepted forms of "improvement" that arguable
seems to be replacements and redirections.
In short they are usually "indirect" and usually to improve motivations
instead of abilities and resourses.


The main difference I did suggest, is that most forms(I don't want to suggest difference between the conventional ones and minorities) of the mayor religioms often
suggest indirect "improvement".
I am thinking about the responses to perceptions of confusing unfortune, personal inability
and the painfull emotions about unfullfied needs and pressing environments.

Basically these ways suggest that until situations hopefully change
for the follower, the person should
increase tolerance for pain or discomfort, adapt our expectations to the enviroment and accept
replacements of the abilities and needs we lack.
Often this goes so far as to turn away totally from the world.

Satanism promote the direct improvements and direct contact with the world
even though in the degree of isolation that the teaching requires..

It is one of the really few known teachings to claim that "the ethical improvement" lies in a better responsiblity and a understanding
of the material world intstead of turning away from it.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I will not say I am sure about the answer becouse I sare the typical fear that satanist have, the fear of "morality".
. . .
Basically these ways suggest that until situations hopefully change
for the follower, the person should
increase tolerance for pain or discomfort, adapt our expectations to the enviroment and accept
replacements of the abilities and needs we lack.
. . .
Satanism promote the direct improvements and direct contact with the world
even though in the degree of isolation that the teaching requires..

How do reconcile a fear of "morality" with statements about what a person should or ought to do or should not or ought not to do?

In short, what is the sense of obligation that drives your should? To improve oneself? Isn't that to play out the fear and self-judgment that is the antithesis of Satanism?

 

[Satanist]

How do reconcile a fear of "morality" with statements about what a person should or ought to do or should not or ought not to do?

In short, what is the sense of obligation that drives your should? To improve oneself? Isn't that to play out the fear and self-judgment that is the antithesis of Satanism?

First, I am sorry for previous spelling error.

The honest answer must be that my "should" is ethical
but not definite moral in nature becouse it has more to do with pragmatism and abilities.

I "reconcile" this as the emotional intelligence which is supposed to accept what otherwise become a "dark side" that seems to lead to discomfort for most who practice morality.
This special inner ethical sense is Satan within me.

But the point is much more complicated to me.

I experience this drive as more genuine and emotionally than the obligations that most moralities that are not based on pleasure.

Satanists have fear and judgmentality too but what kind of fear and judgement?
Satanism doesn't oppose all kind of self-judgement or total lack of fear.
It does oppose the kind of self-judgement and fears that leads to denial of the self or denial of the belief in personal abilities.

I do not experience a serious breakdown every time I try to learn something new.

It usually the fear for the groups that various moralities potentially encourage
to put restrictions on or even harm the satanist.
The idea that the "Good" of more powerfull group is really dangerous and unsufferable while the


We can see very clearly that many Levayan Satanists judge the Temple of Set with scorn becouse they have another more typically "religious" version of Satanism
than the laveyans can accept.

Satanism is very much about optimism and courage but partially it is very cynic and pessimistic which leads to fear.

Also the point wether or not Satanism is a morality is a question that i think is
very difficult becouse it depends on the definition of morality.
Arguable Satanism is just a very special morality.

 

[Quahom1]

First, I am sorry for previous spelling error.

The honest answer must be that my "should" is ethical
but not definite moral in nature becouse it has more to do with pragmatism and abilities.

I "reconcile" this as the emotional intelligence which is supposed to accept what otherwise become a "dark side" that seems to lead to discomfort for most who practice morality.
This special inner ethical sense is Satan within me.

But the point is much more complicated to me.

I experience this drive as more genuine and emotionally than the obligations that most moralities that are not based on pleasure.

Satanists have fear and judgmentality too but what kind of fear and judgement?
Satanism doesn't oppose all kind of self-judgement or total lack of fear.
It does oppose the kind of self-judgement and fears that leads to denial of the self or denial of the belief in personal abilities.

I do not experience a serious breakdown every time I try to learn something new.

It usually the fear for the groups that various moralities potentially encourage
to put restrictions on or even harm the satanist.
The idea that the "Good" of more powerfull group is really dangerous and unsufferable while the


We can see very clearly that many Levayan Satanists judge the Temple of Set with scorn becouse they have another more typically "religious" version of Satanism
than the laveyans can accept.

Satanism is very much about optimism and courage but partially it is very cynic and pessimistic which leads to fear.

Also the point wether or not Satanism is a morality is a question that i think is
very difficult becouse it depends on the definition of morality.
Arguable Satanism is just a very special morality.

No offense meant. It simply sounds to me like a variation of "Humanism", with more specific goals, and perhaps a tighter focus on particular areas of philosophy.

Just a thought.

v/r

Q