09 Sep 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeNot a trivial question. When a person has been raised believing that there is salvation and forgiveness through magical means, then gives up that belief in favor of rational thought, he has to DELIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY develop a new anchor for his morality. Without an anchor, one tends NOT to feel guilt or anxiety when shafting our fellow beings. So the following steps are required of unreligious persons.
How do freethinkers deal with the burden of guilt ?
How do they get rid of guilt ?
These were my original questions and what I mean is , how do you deal with personal guilt, when you've done something wrong, something that's wrong according to your own moral system.
1 - Develop a personal ethos for dealing with Self, Other Individuals and Groups. I refer to this as first,second and third person ethics.
2 - Before you make any decision, or take any action CONSCIOUSLY ask yourself how this event will affect you and those with whom you interact. Use you personal ethics set (ethos) to pose and answer this evaluation. ( Personal Note: I have made the remark in the forum that "I can't even go to the market without asking the where and why of it."... This is what i meant by that statement.
3 - When (not if) you make a mistake, own up to it to all involved, including yourself. Make things right. Whatever it takes.
A good set of first, second and third person ethics are as follows.
I grant to myself the right to absolute freedom that is bound and linked to absolute responsibility. I can harm no other person or my absolute responsibilty becomes void, thus voiding my freedom. (Don't do the crime (action) if you can't do the time (consequence) )
I grant to you, the second person, the same rights and responsibilities as I grant myself. (Do unto others as you would be done by)
I grant to any group nothing. All my moral decisions must be made as transactions with other human beings. Loyalty to any group is immoral. ( Nationalism, sycophantic Politics and Religion all want to lead me. I need no leader. I think and act for myself.)
There is no guilt or need for forgiveness if you anchor your existence in MAKING THE HUMAN RACE BETTER by being a conscious member. The ultimate thrill for a humanist is to know that he/she treats others with kindness and consideration because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO to strengthen the world and leave it a better place for his/her children. Procreation seems to be natures only objective. Making a better civilization should be our prime CONSCIOUS objective. Fear? Never. Punishment? Not for conscious beings. Gods law? Law of the land? Irrelevent when your moral mind controls your actions.
And before anyone asks... If you aren't smart enough to live like this... all the discussion in the world will not help. You know. One way or the other. If you feel a need for country, religion, or government... then there is not a chance in the universe that you can be morally self governing. You need leaders.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWithout an anchor, one tends NOT to feel guilt or anxiety when shafting our fellow beings. So the following steps are required of unreligious persons.
Does the fact that you answer this presuppose that we as freethinkers should feel guilty when giving our neighbors the shaft?
Isn't it possible that guilt and anxiety are biological reactions to the threat of consequences from the moral and social institutions which you say are superfluous for the freethinking individual?
I grant to myself the right to absolute freedom that is bound and linked to absolute responsibility.
Do you believe that your responsibility extends to actions that are largely influenced by circumstances beyond your control? Basically, where does this absolute entightlement to choose your actions with full responsibility come from?
I grant to you, the second person, the same rights and responsibilities as I grant myself.
Does this allow for circumstances beyond the control of the second person? Do you hold a 6-year-old to the same ethical standards, and grant them the same freedoms, that you do yourself?
I grant to any group nothing. All my moral decisions must be made as transactions with other human beings. Loyalty to any group is immoral.
Can't some group leader apply your ethos and hold you to the same ethical and social position that he does members of his group, thus effectively making you a member of his group in that he feels justified in meting out the same consequences to you that he does other members?
You understand that I am not necessarily taking an opposing position--just requesting clarification. I think I know what you answers to many of my questions might be.
Indeed, the business about "courtesy" that I posted a while back seems a bit like this.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWy
When (not if) you make a mistake, own up to it to all involved, including yourself. Make things right. Whatever it takes.
. . .
There is no guilt or need for forgiveness if you anchor your existence in MAKING THE HUMAN RACE BETTER by being a conscious member
I quite agree that when one does something wrong, one must own up and try to make things right. You rightly stress that it is a question of when, and not of "if," ethical mistakes will be made. This is precisely why there is a need for forgiveness, and why there is guilt (let's leave aside feelings of guilt, because feelings are less relevant. I'm just talking about guilt itself). Because we know that you will fail and I will fail, because we know that no one is perfect, that is why no matter how hard you work to make the race better (which is still a very admirable and necessary thing) there is always something left to forgive. "Nobody's perfect," we love to say, and it's true; but saying it doesn't erase our moral responsibilities. Hence, there remains guilt, and therefore something to forgive.
A good set of first, second and third person ethics are as follows.
Is this really a good set? It looks good to me. It feels right to me. But I'm not going to trust my feelings on so important a matter as ethics. Neither will I trust just anyone's word. How am I to know if this (or any other) ethical system is good, or right, or whatever?
10 Sep 03
...I grant to any group nothing. All my moral decisions must be made as transactions with other human beings. Loyalty to any group is immoral. ( Nationalism, sycophantic Politics and Religion all want to lead me. I need no leader. I think and act for myself.)...With statements like these, one might mistake you for an anarchist.
...If you feel a need for country, religion, or government... then there is not a chance in the universe that you can be morally self governing. You need leaders.[/b]
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by royalchickenYes. We all ( freethingers and captivethingers alike) should all feel guilt and anxiety when we give anyone the shaft. The reason for guilt and anxiety might be partly chemical. If so, it is the result of a million years of trial and error FOR MAKING A BETTER SPECIES. Just because some of our feelings might be "natural" is no reason to minimize them. If anything, a good humanist will recognize this aspect and give it greater CONSCIOUS weight.
[b]Without an anchor, one tends NOT to feel guilt or anxiety when shafting our fellow beings. So the following steps are required of unreligious persons.
Does the fact that you answer this presuppose that we as freethinkers should feel guilty when giving our neighbors the shaft?
Isn't it possible that guilt and anxiety are biological reaction ...[text shortened]...
Indeed, the business about "courtesy" that I posted a while back seems a bit like this.
[/b]
Is there anything THAT I DECIDE TO DO that is beyond my control? No. Things might happen to me that are [pseudo] random. (just read the posers and puzzles) My reaction to those, and all , events are my conscious decisions. "Absolute entitlement" is not a correct term. Absolute "linked" freedom/responsibility is what I said. Nobody is "entitled" to anything as that argument presupposes an "entitler", just as "Creation" presupposes a "creator". Certainly there is no "bestowing party" involved in PERSONAL responsibility.
No... a six year old holds only those rights IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO his/her responsibility. As one grows and learns, one inherits rights in direct proportion to learned responsibility. If the development of ones ethical sense is stunted... so also should his/her freedoms be held suspect. I grant to a six year old what I had when i was six; to the fifty year old what I then had.
And finally... the crux... "Leaders" can do anything they damn well please. They have "hooted" their way into dominance and can kill you at their whim. So? It is the moral responsibility of all conscious beings to fight the tyranny of the pack. In all of it's forms. Religion, government and instiutionalized education are the three worse forms of tyranny that we face today. Bad gangs those three! There is also the tyranny of poverty, MAINTAINED by EACH OF US... ALLOWING "LEADERS" TO THINK FOR US instead of us doing it ourselves. "Laziness is perhaps the root of most evil"
10 Sep 03
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettNo. If you follow the argument to it's end though, one must eventually realize that government has no soul. We as individuals MUST have the qualities of kindness and caring or we are part of the machine that acts only to protect itself and grow. The adaptation of the "Bear" as a national symbol by the USSR was more revealing than might be first evident. A bear only cares to protect it's young, eat to grow large and fight for territory. This is what all governments do.
With statements like these, one might mistake you for an anarchist.
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYour implied statement that evolution makes species tend toward the "good" differs from the standard models of evolution, but reminds me of theories like "orthogenesis". It also reminds me of the "Metaphysics of Quality" put forth by my former avatar, although I suppose it is an inversion of this. I'd recommend Pirsig's "Lila".
Yes. We all ( freethingers and captivethingers alike) should all feel guilt and anxiety when we give anyone the shaft. The reason for guilt and anxiety might be partly chemical. If so, it is the result of a million years of trial and error FOR MAKING A BETTER SPECIES. Just because some of our feelings might be "natural" is no reason to minimize them. ...[text shortened]... TO THINK FOR US instead of us doing it ourselves. "Laziness is perhaps the root of most evil"
10 Sep 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenI really don't know about evolution "tending" us to the good. It might just be a way of making us less likely to eat our young. [ Any implied chemical effect ] that is. If there is one thing that none of us can understand it is our evolution. By definition... "A closed system can't study itself from outside, therefore all observations are perochial and not to be trusted" Famous evolution theorist... ME!
Your implied statement that evolution makes species tend toward the "good" differs from the standard models of evolution, but reminds me of theories like "orthogenesis". It also reminds me of the "Metaphysics of Quality" put for ...[text shortened]... it is an inversion of this. I'd recommend Pirsig's "Lila".
10 Sep 03
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat did i tell you about institutionalized education!😉 Give em' the works! Pull no punches!😠
It is interesting to think of morals in evolutionary terms. Unfortunately, I need to go write a paper on Wright's "Native Son" or I'll soon have the venerable Mr. Joseph Foster breathing down my neck.
Later.
Or... Never mind. I tend to get my own kids kicked out of class. No use doing that now, is there?😲
Bye! I'm off myself.