Thoughts On the Meaning of Morality

Ever since the mind of man developed the ability to reason, he has struggled to define ethical/moral right and wrong. Emperors, philosophers, prophets and priests have all promoted their particular versions of morality. Problems arise when the version promoted by one sect, say Catholicism, conflicts with another, like Protestantism, or when say Islam conflicts with Judaism. Each has its version of what to eat, how to dress, when and how to pray, to whom to pray, the proper use of sex, and the role of government in enacting control over people’s behavior.
For me, the determining of right and wrong behavior is based on one simple principle on which it is difficult to obtain a consensus. This principle is: we are all entitled to life, liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness. Liberty means the freedom to do anything we wish so long as it does not infringe upon anyone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What other basis can there possibly be for imposing any other limits? The challenge would be how to determine when one person’s behavior does, in fact, infringe on another’s rights.
If we can reach some consensus on this question, we could stop criminalizing people who are minding their own business and whose behavior we don’t agree with, e.g. drug users, prostitutes, gamblers, and start being fair to homosexuals who want to marry and to women who want to end a pregnancy. It could be as simple as: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Why Differ on the Source of Principles and Values?

Christians often imply that only Christians can have principles and values, and that a "relationship with God" is essential for overcoming "original and enduring" evil. As long as this attitude prevails, that Christians are right and everyone else is wrong, how can there ever be peace and harmony? How is this any different than the Muslim belief of the same ilk? Must we all become either 100% Christian or 100% Muslim in order to get along?
Read more »

The Meaning of Liberty

The Meaning of Liberty

Ask yourself: what aspect of your life do you value most? When I ask myself this question, I think of family, friends, health, wealth, country, and more; but the aspect that is essential to all, for me, is liberty. The Declaration of Independence emphasizes man’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. For me, without liberty, life would not be desirable and the pursuit of happiness would not be possible.

So, let us ask: what is liberty?
It is obvious that we don’t all think of this in the same way. How can liberty, for someone who has always been free, be the same as for someone who has just been freed from slavery or captivity? How can liberty for a person steeped in the dictates of Catholicism, or Islam, or so-called fundamental Christianity of any denomination, be the same as for someone who has never been made to feel guilty for being alive?

It is obvious that the founders of the US, those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution, did not all see liberty as meaning what most Americans today mean. After all, only white males were guaranteed the right to vote when the first ten amendments were adopted in 1791. It was not until the adoption of the 15th Amendment in 1870 that the right to vote could no longer be denied to anyone because of “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” It was still another 50 years before the 19th Amendment was passed prohibiting the denial of the right to vote on the basis of sex. It took us all these years to reach the awareness that we were not living up to our declared intention that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights.

For me, liberty means the freedom to live life as I please with the only limitation being that my actions do not deny or infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same. It means freedom to choose my behavior and comes with the obligation to be responsible for any consequences. Thus my moral values are determined by how my actions affect others both far and near. Liberty, in the setting of one’s city, state and nation, means freedom from oppression and from all limitations by law other than those laws needed to protect the rights of all others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some people believe that they have the right to protect others from themselves, e.g. laws requiring seat belts or helmets. Some also believe that government should legislate morality, e.g. laws making it a crime to possess drugs or for prostitution or for terminating a pregnancy. To me, this is not compatible with liberty. Even if I favored this way of thinking, I would not know how to choose those who would decide what morals to legislate. I am much more comfortable with this being left up to the individual to decide for himself.

When we say, “This is a free country”, we imply that there is freedom for everyone. But is this really true? We all claim our right, given by the Constitution, to practice our choice of whatever religion appeals to us. There is a mutual respect between believers in all the Judeo-Christian denominations which derives from an understanding that all insiders have a common belief in a single deity. “We are all God-fearing.” But what happens when we encounter those others who believe in multiple deities (e.g. Hindus) or those who have no God-belief? When a non-believer makes himself known, he/she often becomes an object of contempt and exclusion. His/her freedom begins to be jeopardized.

The US Constitution guarantees for every person freedom of, and from, religion (one can't have one without the other), and freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. It guarantees there will be no government sponsored religion, which implies no government favored religion (otherwise the freedom of all religion is compromised). This seems clear until we find ourselves in those situations where one person’s exercise of liberty infringes on the rights of others. In these areas it is obvious that there must be some limits on how one exercises his/her rights. The right to freedom of speech, for example, cannot go so far as to allow the shouting of “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, nor so far as to allow slander or false accusations. The right to privacy does not go so far as to allow the withholding of information which could prove another’s guilt or innocence.

With liberty comes obligation. Liberty without obligation is license--the freedom to do as you please without regard for consequences--the realm of tyrants.

When legislators take it upon themselves to decide what limits to impose on individual liberty, they are often carried away by their sense of power and the ego satisfaction they get out of assuming the role of parent. They become patriarchs/matriarchs eager to control others.

I like this quotation attributed to Judge Learned Hand: The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women”.

I Am

7/7/11
I rise. I brush and splash. I walk. I sip, read and think. Cogito, ergo sum. Yes, I am.

I turn it on, look and watch--the numbers change constantly before my eyes.

I think of Frances, and I ask myself: is what I am doing helping her--to cope? To prepare for the future? Or for the end? I think so. I hope so.

I think of my children, step children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. What kind of world will they be living in? What can I do to make their lives as pleasant and fulfilling as possible? The goals may be unattainable, but I must try.

My Development As a Non-believer

My Development As a Non-believer

Polls have shown that approximately 79% of Americans profess a belief in a deity or creator. Most Americans were brought up in homes where such beliefs were held by the parents and taught to the children, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, and I was no exception. In my family, my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents were churchgoers. I never had the opportunity to hear any of my grandparents or great-grandparents say what they actually believed. My parents did make it clear that they were believers and devoted to the Presbyterian Church. They took me to Sunday School
Read more »

Answers and Uncertainty

Is it the plight of mankind to be slaves to the desire for certainty? What else can explain why we so quickly and willingly attach ourselves to those leaders who dare to tell us what is truth, what we should believe, what kind of government we should have, and what we need to do to solve our problems? We love authority figures--especially those with charisma. A would-be leader who comes across as an attractive authority can convince us of almost anything they wish. We want to accept their answers without question-- and we do. We are more comfortable having somebody else to figure out the hard answers for us; or maybe we just don’t trust our own judgment, but we can’t seem to bear being uncertain.
Read more »

Philosophy As a Way of Life

The early, so-called “great”, philosophers saw philosophy as a way of life, meaning not only a means of livelihood, but more especially a pattern of thinking, a way of perceiving oneself and the universe, and a guide to ethics and morality--a way of deciding how to live and relate to others. They searched, discussed, experimented and labored over trying to develop and teach a method for doing these things. They each sought what they called “truth”, but few ever felt that they were satisfied that they had found an unequivocal answer. Most of them, at various times in their lives, were popular and sought after by some and seen as dangerous heretics by others.
Read more »

How Reason Works

"You can not with reason convince a person out of a position which they did not use reason to get to in the first place." (Source unknown)

What Price Anger?

Anger comes naturally to us humans when someone causes us pain, and the
experiences of childhood and youth are replete with painful situations. As young children we want, and need, not only our parents’ love, but also their affirmation. We need to be told, and demonstrated to, that we are valued as a person. Parents often, out of their own need, do not affirm us enough; and the more we feel (consciously or unconsciously)unaffirmed, the greater our craving for it. The denial of affirmation, all the way to actual abuse, causes us pain to which we respond with anger because we have not learned that we can do or feel anything else.

Most of us, if we are spared outright abuse, learn to get affirmation by being obedient, cooperative,
Read more »

Fact and Fantasy

FACT AND FANTASY

Humans have developed a system for using their minds to distinguish fact from fantasy. We call it science, and it includes math, physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy. Information gathered by these methods can be demonstrated and replicated, always with the same results, unequivocal. We all know from experience
Read more »

Free Thinking Behooves Us All

Albert Schweitzer is reported to have said, “Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now, always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances.”

Since I see truth as not an absolute but an ever expanding manner of observing all existence, I would offer a slightly different expression by substituting the word “inquiry” for “truth”: Inquiry has no special time of its own. Its hour is now, always, and indeed then when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances.

The Skeptic

The Skeptic


He was 15 years old, in high school, and had participated in the program at school assembly that day. When school let out, he was walking toward the street where his mother was waiting in the car, and a voice called out across the yard, “You did good in assembly today, Frank”. He did not answer. When he got into the car, his mother asked, “Why didn’t you thank that girl who complimented you?” He did not have an answer. It seemed trivial to him. In later years he learned to see all such compliments as honest efforts to affirm and be supportive--not trivial at all.

Over the years, the memory of this experience led to some further self-examination.
Read more »

Religious Dogma

I have come to realize that the single most destructive and abusive piece of religious dogma ever foisted on the mind of a gullible young person is the idea that all mankind (this means you) are sinners and thus unworthy of anything but death. Once convinced of this mistaken image of himself, the person becomes a slave to the religious authority which indoctrinated him, and then he has to spend his best efforts, in his most potentially productive years, learning how to cope with guilt and feelings of inferiority which the concept engenders, not to mention the loneliness, fear, anxiety and depression also accompanying.

The Creation Viewpoint

THINKING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

The question of the ages is: how did all this get here and from whence did the universe come? My thinking has led me long ago to the position which follows.

If we say that the universe must have been created and the only possible creator is God, then we are still left with the question: where did God come from?

It seems to me that any answer which might be given to the second question could, and should, be given to the first question. It also seems obvious that any attempt to answer the question (thus far in man’s existence) is mere speculation. Terms such as "eternal", "forever", and "infinite" are words invented to indicate the limits
Read more »

Believers and Non-believers

IS A SANE, CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE EVEN POSSIBLE BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS?

Philosophy, according Webster, is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct. Any discussion of philosophy eventually boils down to one or all of the following subjects: religion, sex, money, and power. Politics involves them all, and the one which presents perhaps the greatest hurdle to constructive dialogue is religion.

Here is the problem. Most, if not all, religions contain the idea of "faith" or "belief". Webster defines these as: faith--belief that is not based on proof; and belief--confidence in the truth or existence of something not
 susceptible to rigorous proof. So, if we are going to give credence to, and claim as reality, things which we can only imagine, e.g. God, then what are the criteria for judging the merit of any idea?
Read more »

A Way to End Wars

I was just listening to a Mozart symphony, and had this thought.

I have noticed that most symphony orchestras are made up of people from many ethnic backgrounds. I see the faces of white people (who could be English, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, American, etc.), black people, East Asians, and who knows what who are coming together to make music. If music can bring people toghether like this, then I would like to see the leaders of ALL countries selected from the field of music---maybe former conductors or composers.

I can not imagine that leaders like these would ever want to go to war with anyone. They could work out their differences while playing music or listening to a symphony.

Justice and Vengeance: what is the difference?

A reading of the dictionary definitions of the words justice and vengeance reveals why there is so much variety of opinion on this subject. It becomes clear that we have no objective standards by which to make a distinction between justice and revenge, and the two become equated. Our opinions are charged with emotion, thus are subjective. It seems that we will never have a consensus with regard to the state executing a criminal (so-called capital punishment) unless we can evolve beyond the primitive desire for revenge.
Read more »

In Search of Truth: Distinguishing Reality From Fantasy

In a world in which its inhabitants rely so heavily on fantasy and myth to supply answers to the eternal questions of (1) who are we?, (2) from whence did we come?, (3) where are we going?, it behooves us to be skeptics if we wish to arrive at anything resembling the truth.

All of the efforts to encourage pluralism, tolerance and cooperation are steps in the right direction. The question is: can we have a society (world) which provides liberty and equal treatment for all when we have such diverse fantasies and deem our particular fantasy to be the right one? Can we have diverse fantasies and still protect individual rights?

The historical record is that our differing fantasies have caused us to engage in much strife, e.g. the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Protestant Reformation, witch hunts and court battles which endure to the present day. Shouldn’t we consider living without such fantasies and admitting that we actually don’t know the answers? This would at least give us fewer reasons to mistreat each other.

The Role of Tradition in Our Lives (good and bad)

Tradition, in its many forms, has always played a part in how we see ourselves, how we see life, others and the world. Sometimes this is constructive, and sometimes destructive. Some traditions make life easier for all of us, and some favor a particular group st the expense of other groups.

Traditions such as those which celebrate birthdays, anniversaries and family reunions can be joyful, goodwill producing and provide a healthy sense of identity.

Traditions which attempt to control how we think, or which promulgate prejudices, are destructive and contribute to conflict and distrust. Examples are: public prayer; the teaching of the Bible, the Koran or the
Read more »

Dialogues? Why?

Dialogue? Why do we do it? 6/21/09

Isn’t it a part of human nature to want to compete? We participate in sports in the hope of winning; we play card games, enter talent shows and beauty contests, participate in spelling bees and quiz shows---all with the goal of emerging as victor. Isn’t our motive in a dialogue the same as in a debate, i.e. to present the better argument and hopefully to persuade the other to our way of thinking? If so, then the challenge is: how to go about this constructively so as to avoid alienation and instead build trust and goodwill.

Here are some things to avoid:
1) a superior attitude (I’m OK, you’re not OK)
2) closing the door on new ideas or info.
3) put-downs; making the other person feel unvalued.
4) hidden agendas; not being honest.
5) being defensive, or causing the other to be defensive (acting out of emotion
rather than reason)
6) interrupting.

Things to do:
1) listen and give feed-back: “What I heard you say is____. Did I hear
correctly?”
2) ask questions: “What do you think about____?”
3) give credit where credit is due: “That’s a good thought,” or “a challenging
idea”; or “I can tell that you’ve given this a lot of thought”.
4) define your terms to avoid ambiguity.
5) be honest about feelings, yet respond from reason.