The worth of morality may depend on how good is framed.
I associate good with being happy and recognize that needs (food, shelter, health, safeness) are critical precursors to being happy.
So I first equate good with that which satisfies needs. If needs are met, I associate good with things that lead to broad, lasting fulfillment.
I express morality in similar terms. From my perspective, worthwhile morality is identified by the way it advances broad, organic, persistent happiness and immorality can describe that which knowingly advances broad, actual unhappiness.
I come from a similar perspective and have argued with a lot of people who disagree. The conclusion I’ve come to is, unfortunately, that many people have similar beliefs on the nature of “good,” yet believe vastly different things from me, and that this gulf is near uncrossable for many. A person taught by their parents and culture to believe, for example, that the “moral nature” of a person remains largely fixed after childhood, and that they could be a better parent than their parents, can justify seizing resources at the expense of their already condemned peers in order to raise a generation more capable of producing a society that does “good.” This is rational and altruistic according to their priors, but results in deeply selfish behavior.
All I’m trying to say is that defining good alone is useless for doing good. You’d also need to get lucky enough to be correct about how to do good.
The only way to actually become good is to ask the universe (and its Creator) to help us become better, in stages.
It leaves us alone until we do that, no matter how good or ill we choose to be. To actually change into a better person, whose vices are replaced by their corresponding virtues, takes external help in addition to our willful effort.
> In my view, our purest purpose is to be happy and help others achieve happiness. Good things drive that.
There is nothing in life and/or religion that is above that purpose. It IS the purpose, the ONLY purpose, or the person cannot claim to be acting within a form of God's religion. There are many forms of God's religion, and each person has the complete freedom to connect with God however they like; that is between them and God, periodt!
It does not matter what a person says, if they are not moving towards universal compassion and its necessary movement towards ALL others' happiness, they're just another pack animal in human clothing and capability.
We are one human race, under one Creator who goes by many Names, within one fundamental moral compass heading of complete devotion to love for ALL human beings, including ourselves as well.
> In this context, an actively benevolent deity should naturally be drawn into lives. A disconnected or antagonistic deity would not.
God never compelling religion is due to It completely honoring our freedom to ignore Its presense or helpful direction on how to become better people; that is why our free will is both our most valuable capability and our most serious responsibility. That responsibility is demonstrated by the karmic results of our use of this life to either be selfishly callous about our fellow human beings' well-being, or compassionately active in helping increase their happiness. This why dictators are NEVER happy, though they usually have all the pleasures they can desire.
Congradulations, Sir/Madam! You understand the complete purpose of religion and, therefore, LIFE! We each have our own relationship to our Creator that we must maintain and strengthen over our lifetime, and our personal happiness is the universe's feedback mechanism of inner peace that indicates what kindof crop our karma is growing. I am at your service; you have brought me great happiness today! Thank you.
"But there's still time to change the road you're on." --Stairway To Heaven
Only after one completes the enlightenment of the soul's heart, thereby being granted a glimpse of our Creator's "Face" and becoming as the 5th Beatitude states:
"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God."
After that, the person has become fully submitted to the Divine Will (Spirit/conscience, physical body, soul, and free will, all four), and is thus a servant of humanity in lovingkindness for the rest of their days. Such a one then, in payment, gets unfettered access to our mostly latent human capabilities, including being able to ask any question and receive the answer, as well as full consciousness during the soul's travels while we sleep (where we travel at the speed of thought).
"How wonderful it is to be in constant communication with You." --Rumi (paraphrase from memory)
Note that every door that God opens in answer to a question reveals seven more closed doors beyond. As such, no one can exhaust this universe's knowledge in one lifetime, not even someone in constant, noiseless communication with the Divine Source.
I am not (yet) such a one, though I have made some progress.
Morality is just the "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" (supercooperator) strategy in the prisoners dilemma game. And this strategy being present in the mix of popular strategies (including sociopathic defection) results in the social dynamics and 100 year economic cycles we see in the history books. Organism/tribe/state population frequencies for the defect and supercooperator strategies periodically dominate the planet and the economy on about a 50-100 yr cycles, and the period between pendulum swings is shortening with technological advancements. Just chart global social inequality for the past 1000 years or so and you'll see the pattern. We're in the depths of the minimum of the supercooperator sine wave right now with socioeconomic inequality at its peak. Eventually the sociopaths start fighting each other and leave a niche open for supercooperators to come back.
The worth of morality may depend on how good is framed.
I associate good with being happy and recognize that needs (food, shelter, health, safeness) are critical precursors to being happy.
So I first equate good with that which satisfies needs. If needs are met, I associate good with things that lead to broad, lasting fulfillment.
I express morality in similar terms. From my perspective, worthwhile morality is identified by the way it advances broad, organic, persistent happiness and immorality can describe that which knowingly advances broad, actual unhappiness.
I come from a similar perspective and have argued with a lot of people who disagree. The conclusion I’ve come to is, unfortunately, that many people have similar beliefs on the nature of “good,” yet believe vastly different things from me, and that this gulf is near uncrossable for many. A person taught by their parents and culture to believe, for example, that the “moral nature” of a person remains largely fixed after childhood, and that they could be a better parent than their parents, can justify seizing resources at the expense of their already condemned peers in order to raise a generation more capable of producing a society that does “good.” This is rational and altruistic according to their priors, but results in deeply selfish behavior.
All I’m trying to say is that defining good alone is useless for doing good. You’d also need to get lucky enough to be correct about how to do good.
The only way to actually become good is to ask the universe (and its Creator) to help us become better, in stages.
It leaves us alone until we do that, no matter how good or ill we choose to be. To actually change into a better person, whose vices are replaced by their corresponding virtues, takes external help in addition to our willful effort.
This is our situation since time immemorial.
> The only way to actually become good is to ask the universe (and its Creator)
In your view, what the purpose of human life?
In my view, our purest purpose is to be happy and help others achieve happiness. Good things drive that.
In this context, an actively benevolent deity should naturally be drawn into lives. A disconnected or antagonistic deity would not.
> In my view, our purest purpose is to be happy and help others achieve happiness. Good things drive that.
There is nothing in life and/or religion that is above that purpose. It IS the purpose, the ONLY purpose, or the person cannot claim to be acting within a form of God's religion. There are many forms of God's religion, and each person has the complete freedom to connect with God however they like; that is between them and God, periodt!
It does not matter what a person says, if they are not moving towards universal compassion and its necessary movement towards ALL others' happiness, they're just another pack animal in human clothing and capability.
We are one human race, under one Creator who goes by many Names, within one fundamental moral compass heading of complete devotion to love for ALL human beings, including ourselves as well.
> In this context, an actively benevolent deity should naturally be drawn into lives. A disconnected or antagonistic deity would not.
God never compelling religion is due to It completely honoring our freedom to ignore Its presense or helpful direction on how to become better people; that is why our free will is both our most valuable capability and our most serious responsibility. That responsibility is demonstrated by the karmic results of our use of this life to either be selfishly callous about our fellow human beings' well-being, or compassionately active in helping increase their happiness. This why dictators are NEVER happy, though they usually have all the pleasures they can desire.
Congradulations, Sir/Madam! You understand the complete purpose of religion and, therefore, LIFE! We each have our own relationship to our Creator that we must maintain and strengthen over our lifetime, and our personal happiness is the universe's feedback mechanism of inner peace that indicates what kindof crop our karma is growing. I am at your service; you have brought me great happiness today! Thank you.
"But there's still time to change the road you're on." --Stairway To Heaven
Through what avenue does one receive the unperturbed word of said creator?
Only after one completes the enlightenment of the soul's heart, thereby being granted a glimpse of our Creator's "Face" and becoming as the 5th Beatitude states:
After that, the person has become fully submitted to the Divine Will (Spirit/conscience, physical body, soul, and free will, all four), and is thus a servant of humanity in lovingkindness for the rest of their days. Such a one then, in payment, gets unfettered access to our mostly latent human capabilities, including being able to ask any question and receive the answer, as well as full consciousness during the soul's travels while we sleep (where we travel at the speed of thought). Note that every door that God opens in answer to a question reveals seven more closed doors beyond. As such, no one can exhaust this universe's knowledge in one lifetime, not even someone in constant, noiseless communication with the Divine Source.I am not (yet) such a one, though I have made some progress.
I remember reading The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, and I think there was a section on trade.
Basically he said that society progresses when there is trade, and trade only really takes off when there is trust.
It might be morality that is the underpinning of trust.
Morality is just the "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" (supercooperator) strategy in the prisoners dilemma game. And this strategy being present in the mix of popular strategies (including sociopathic defection) results in the social dynamics and 100 year economic cycles we see in the history books. Organism/tribe/state population frequencies for the defect and supercooperator strategies periodically dominate the planet and the economy on about a 50-100 yr cycles, and the period between pendulum swings is shortening with technological advancements. Just chart global social inequality for the past 1000 years or so and you'll see the pattern. We're in the depths of the minimum of the supercooperator sine wave right now with socioeconomic inequality at its peak. Eventually the sociopaths start fighting each other and leave a niche open for supercooperators to come back.