Our Moral Compass

[DeletedUser3]

Allow this discussion to be a religious/areligious debate on "moral compass," without bashing of specific belief systems. If I may borrow a statement made on another thread to initiate this discussion:

"the standard of operation, using religion to guide some of our laws (really it guides our moral compass which guides our laws in turn but that's off topic)."

I am of the opinion our moral compass has nothing to do with religions. As I have seen it, some people have an internal moral compass, others do not, irrespective of their beliefs. It is only when these compasses are written down by those who "have" them that others who do not can benefit from the learning. In other words, some internally develop a moral compass, some have to learn from others how to possess one. And then, there's the ones who do not develop and have no interest in learning.

What are your thoughts?

 

[DeletedUser]

“I have no morals, yet I am a very moral person” - Voltaire. People's sense of right and wrong come from inside the individual. One person can take bad childhood experiences and become a "saint" because they see the wrong. Another person can take the same experiences and perceive them as guidelines to live by. Even with "religious" influence, this disparity abounds. How many wars have been started by religious zealots of faiths with tenets that profess peace and brotherly love? God gave us a will, the ability to choose as opposed to acting on instinct. It is this choice which we use to determine our “moral compass”. A person’s religious fiber is not demonstrated by their words, but more so by their deeds. The final judgment will not be made by man nor will it be made on words and deeds. **Exit stage right**

 

[*Arturis*]

Mines are simple:
"Mind my own business"
Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
Silver Rule: One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

 

[DeletedUser]

Bronze rule: One should treat others to pizza and beer if they help one to move furniture.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Well this thread has been as interesting as the text to read it said it would be.

Here is my take on morals. Some people are just liars. They skirt the truth, and play with peoples heads for the heck of it...kicks and giggles. Is this not a moral compass? Is a person incapable of truth and honesty "capable" of any moral compass? But then there is people like me, open, honest, sometimes brutally so, and yet, compassionate and loyal. I believe in treating everyone the way I want to be treated....That isn't to say I don't occasionally fail in this, but that isn't saying I lack a moral compass.

That said, since I am human, and emotional, you put experiences I have faced in the mix, there aren't times that the insane urge to MESS SOMEONE UP doesn't raise its head..in cases such as that, I absolutely fall back on the teachings of my faith. Does this mean I have no moral compass because I have to hold onto something written? Doubtful. I thank God everyday that I have overcome what I have overcome and have become a better person for it. I did not resort to filling my life with lies and half truths.

To me a liar is an immoral person. but go ahead and mess with me.....because neither do I feel a "moral" person has to be a doormat, and tolerate crap before eventually setting the record straight.....

 

[DeletedUser]

I am of the opinion our moral compass has nothing to do with religions.

In some cases yes, but for some percentage of people religion has a great influence on their moral judgement (aka a compass)

What are your thoughts?

it isnt clear to me what the question of this thread is??? i hope my guess was right in the way i answered above lol.

 

[DeletedUser3422]

A moral compass is designed and calibrated by our group. Some of us are psychopaths, the rest of us cycle between being self centered and others centered while still being part of our group. Some of these groups get their rules from organized religion and adapt them accordingly. The golden rule only applies when dealing with your own group. When in Rome... Paul championed this principle which is overlooked by many if not most Christians but that is another debate.
Many of us do believe in some universal truths like don’t lie, steal, cheat, murder, etc. We see these recurring themes throughout history and cultures but we do rationalize them. My guess is we have about the same percent who will follow their own moral compass when nobody looking (integrity) as we have psychopaths, the rest of us are in between.

 

[DeletedUser]

Without an external moral compass, you have NO moral compass. When you can simply say "That's North" with nothing to base that decision on, then you have no moral compass. A compass is something that MUST have an external source for it's veracity. Without that external source, it is nothing more than a skinny little magnet. A personal moral compass is the same thing. If you can simply decide that today kicking cats is wrong and then tomorrow decided that kicking cats is right and neither decision is based on anything other than your decision, then you have no moral compass, you're simply adrift. Having an external source for your morality gives you a constant and reliable source to anchor your life to. Having nothing more than a personal moral (which no matter how hard you try not to, you WILL change it to fit your whims, desires and circumstances) leaves you with nothing that tells you what right and wrong are.

The choice of what you call your moral compass is a critical one. Choose the wrong compass and you end up killing children and claiming that it's OK. Choose the right one and you end up standing between those same children and those who would harm them.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Well, addressing the external notion, we have societies. It is these societies that define what is moral/amoral. Generally, these decisions are made as a whole. One could argue, "but where did these individuals, who amassed to create a society, obtain their morals?" In this, I believe the answer is, "it is learned." Through interaction with each other, within a community, we learn what works and what doesn't. We learn that grabbing our friend's wife's butt does not merely entail a slap in the face, it sometimes also entails our friend's plowshare protruding from our forehead. We learn that having sex with a hundred partners results in a lot of people getting sick and keeling over, with a rotting organ as an indicator of causation. We learn that taking something from someone else causes problems. Essentially, we learn. Living alone, in a box, there's nothing to learn but shelter, security, and sustenance. In a community, we must learn to work together. It is the catalyst to morals. I.e., it is the rules to "getting along with others."

 

[DeletedUser]

Morality can also be attributed to our social, psychological and biological evolution as a species. Many of the 'hard-wired' moral leanings are just that; hard-wired. It's not the case for everyone, as there are outliers in all groups and norms classifications. (Moral bell curve), but much of how we are is a result of how we came to be.

 

[DeletedUser4844]

I was going to spout the golden rule as the bedrock for most morality, but others here beat me to it. However, in any discussion of morality, I just wanted to add that eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth really gets a bum rap. Many people attribute this quote to the bible, and I think it is part of the bible, but it was articulated long before that in the time of Hammurabbi, the guy who first codified any set of laws, really. In that time of one of the earliest cities, most people had no concept of a society, and only had any loyalty to their family or clan. This posed a problem, as small slights often got rapidly out of hand. Joe would cheat on Mary, Mary's family would kill Joe, Joe's family would kill Mary's family, etc. The concept of any sort of justice was very knew, but Hammurabbi had the idea that people should be allowed to avenge wrongs done them, but that his scosiety could not function if the reaction was greater then the original wrong. hence you got the idea that people would be allowed to take an eye from someone who had taken an eye from them, or a tooth from someone who took a tooth from them, but that this was a limit. They were not allowed to take MORE then that eye or that tooth. That was the basis of that saying.

 

[DeletedUser5824]

Meh, I personally see it very simply. I don't do thing I wouldn't want done to me. There's one or two execptions, but in general that's what I follow and it does me just fine

 

[DeletedUser5902]

I'd have to say that to some degree, religion does have its say in our moral compasses. The Muslim's use the Quran as their moral compass, followers of Christ (like myself) use the Bible as a moral compass. And you have to admit, non-religious people do have a much higher rate of immorality than religious.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to spout the golden rule as the bedrock for most morality, but others here beat me to it. However, in any discussion of morality, I just wanted to add that eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth really gets a bum rap. Many people attribute this quote to the bible, and I think it is part of the bible, but it was articulated long before that in the time of Hammurabbi, the guy who first codified any set of laws, really. In that time of one of the earliest cities, most people had no concept of a society, and only had any loyalty to their family or clan. This posed a problem, as small slights often got rapidly out of hand. Joe would cheat on Mary, Mary's family would kill Joe, Joe's family would kill Mary's family, etc. The concept of any sort of justice was very knew, but Hammurabbi had the idea that people should be allowed to avenge wrongs done them, but that his scosiety could not function if the reaction was greater then the original wrong. hence you got the idea that people would be allowed to take an eye from someone who had taken an eye from them, or a tooth from someone who took a tooth from them, but that this was a limit. They were not allowed to take MORE then that eye or that tooth. That was the basis of that saying.

HisPublisher: To be precise, the Bible says, that an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth is NOT the way. Rather it says love your enemies, bless them that curse you, love those that hate you, do good to those who persecute you. (in context, hate the sin, love the sinner)

 

[DeletedUser4844]

HisPublisher: To be precise, the Bible says, that an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth is NOT the way. Rather it says love your enemies, bless them that curse you, love those that hate you, do good to those who persecute you. (in context, hate the sin, love the sinner)

Yes, it does, which is where the bum rap comes from. The bible makes it sound like eye for an eye was a particularly savage ideology, while, given the historical context, eye for an eye was intended to minimize/decrease the savagery of people and make society more just and merciful.

 

[DeletedUser5902]

Yes, it does, which is where the bum rap comes from. The bible makes it sound like eye for an eye was a particularly savage ideology, while, given the historical context, eye for an eye was intended to minimize/decrease the savagery of people and make society more just and merciful.

Really? The Joker didn't care if his actions led to a sightless, toothless world.
Count Dooku nearly lost his life because of revenge, then killed the nightsisters
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth is how the world got to be so aweful. It NEVER minimized the savagery anywhere in history.

 

[DeletedUser4844]

Are you pretending comic books are real world after ignoring what I said about the actual historical origin, or am I missing something myself?

 

[DeletedUser5902]

I'm just useing that as one example. Show me an example from history where this eye for eye actually worked.
Better yet, apply it to yourself. If you murdered my Dad, for example. Would you rather I came and killed you and then your family kill me? Or would you prefer I forgave you, didn't press charges against you, and offered to have the court place YOUR sentence on MY head? That's what the Bible means. Persuaded from violence by love, not more violence.

I still dare you to show me a working historical account of this stuff.

 

[DeletedUser4844]

It seems silly to just quote my own post, but...

In that time of one of the earliest cities, most people had no concept of a society, and only had any loyalty to their family or clan. This posed a problem, as small slights often got rapidly out of hand. Joe would cheat on Mary, Mary's family would kill Joe, Joe's family would kill Mary's family, etc. The concept of any sort of justice was very new, but Hammurabi had the idea that people should be allowed to avenge wrongs done them, but that his society could not function if the reaction was greater then the original wrong. hence you got the idea that people would be allowed to take an eye from someone who had taken an eye from them, or a tooth from someone who took a tooth from them, but that this was a limit. They were not allowed to take MORE then that eye or that tooth. That was the basis of that saying.

Fixed a few typos from the original.

IN other words, when the idea started, eye for an eye WAS the more merciful/loving option.

- - - Updated - - -

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

Scroll down to the section labeled Abrahamic Traditions. A quote from there: "In the Hammurabi Code and Hebrew Law, the “eye for eye” was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss; in the Hammurabic code as being literal, and in the Hebrew Law applying monetarily. Thus, it might be better read 'only one eye for one eye'."

 

[DeletedUser5902]

I asked for a literal account from history where this mindset kept violence from happening

 

[DeletedUser4844]

Not a lot of recorded data from 4000 years ago.