Who are the Moral Free Riders?

The Intellectual Conservative ^ | 11 March 2005 | Thomas E. Brewton

[hocndoc]

Michael,
I'm sorry that you are irritated by our belief in God and the author's pointing out the evidence that it is under governments that are trained and restrained by Christian/Judeo-Christian principles that mankind has prospered and the horrors that result in those nations whose leaders hate God. That evidence should be enough for any rational man or woman to pause and consider whether there might be causation, rather than simply correlation.

If you'll take a look at the commandments in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, the reason we are told to do them is to do well, to live long and well, to prosper, as well as to go to heaven. Some take these as promises of rewards. I see them as evidence of the way the world runs, the way we humans are built, since we are created in the Image of God. I think that's why you have an urge to do your "best to minimize" the harm you do and a need to avoid judging the failings of others. Why would you do that if there is no restraint outside of what you can get away with? Why not maximize the good you can do for yourself and only judge whether other people are in the way of your happiness? If there is no ultimate, unconditional "Truth" or God, then why not "Might makes right," rather than "Do unto others?"

If you don't believe in God and are not trying to rule and run over the rest of us, you aren't talented enough to take advantage of the rest of us. Or you have learned by trial and error that you have limits.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

"If you believe in God then it does matter."

The thing is, DB, I think it matters whether you believe in God or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you implying that we godless heathens are going to make the immoral choice when confronted with moral dilemmas? If we make the moral choice, are you saying that we make it for selfish reasons?

You, and others on this thread, seem to equate atheism or agnosticism with immorality. Label it anyway you choose and go to bed each night thinking you have the moral high ground if that makes you feel secure. I will continue trying to do as much good and as little harm as I can.

I'm agnostic and so I'm open to the concept of divinity but I do not feel that I need to believe to be a good man.

[hocndoc]

Where does the Natural Law originate? Why do all "know" these things?

It's because that's the way we were created.

There's actually a book on Natural Law titled, "What We Can't Not Know," by J. Budziszewski.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890626546/qid=1110755467/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-4364835-1109402

[Blue Collar Christian]

"They are "truly moral free riders" because they try to use morality, which at its core mandates a belief in a higher power, to persuade others to buy into their point of view."

They have actually reinvented morality to support to their immorality. To them, it is immoral of conservatives to "force" traditional morals on them. Yet they still have immunity from their new morality because it suits their agenda when they get California taxpayers to pay for embryonic stem cell research, thus "forcing" their (im)morality on us conservatives.

My conclusion: They must believe that by killing our own young we will obtain immortality through medical advances and never have to stand before God.

[Ragnorak]

You do know where the Golden Rule comes from... ;)

In my experience most "atheists" have simply had a negative experience with a religious institution at some point and have been left with a bad taste when it comes to religion in general. They go about their lives working 40-80 hours a week, trying to support and raise their family and for some strange reason don't really bother delving into heady questions like the philosophical nature and origins of morality. They live their lives with honesty and integrity and follow the spirit of the Golden Rule just like you've described.

My concern is the atheists who really have delved into the philosophical questions of morality and concluded that there is a highest moral authority and its called government. They believe that government should play the role in individual's lives that religion has traditionally played and they claim that this is the "moral" thing to do. Religion is merely an individualistic propaganda tool of the inherently oppressive capitalist system and thus your personal notions of right and wrong must bow to the greater morality of the collective good. They're a particular breed of liberals and their view of "morality" is showing up with disturbing frequency in Supreme Court opinions. Believe me, they know exactly how much of an obstacle a belief in God is to their goals.

[LeGrande]

Without the appeal to a higher power, what is the consequence of changing your mind (and morality)? Morality without a higher power simply becomes a post hoc justification for what we want...

Morality is simply knowing what the results of our actions will be, prior to acting. If I go jump off a cliff, I know that gravity will help me down the mountain. In much the same way I know that murdering someone will invite their friends and relatives to kill me. All 'moral values" are based on that principle.

Religious people act morally out of the fear that God will punish them if they don't. Atheists act morally out of fear of what their fellow men will do to them if they don't. Truly moral people are moral because they know that behaving that way is the surest way to a satisfying life. They don't have to overcome temptation or fear, they simply are.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

"I'm sorry that you are irritated by our belief in God..."

I'm not irritated by your belief. As long as you don't try to force me or mine to believe the way you do, as I believe the Islamists are going to do, what you believe is not my business.

"If you don't believe in God and are not trying to rule and run over the rest of us, you aren't talented enough to take advantage of the rest of us. Or you have learned by trial and error that you have limits."

While the last sentence is certainly true in my case, I'm sorry that you have such a negative opinion of humanity.

Michael Frazier

[MRMEAN]

Morality is the good as outlined in the Bible.

Bible Morality

[KDD]

The problem is that concrete moral issues have been preempted by the liberal presumption of privacy, and the relentless extension of the liberal language of autonomy has removed a common moral framework from our society. Somewhere we have lost our hold on the sense that there is a moral order independent of our choices and wishes.

We can point to many suspects in history as the causes of this loss, but only their common character really matters. It is the fate of a liberal political tradition to progressively consume its own moral substance. By removing more and more of the controverted issues from the public sphere and placing them in the private realm, it conveys the inexorable sense that there is no common moral order. There are only the "values" we choose to apply to ourselves. All that matters is that we are legally right in asserting our rights claims, and the legal order is finally accepted as the only moral order.

The independent moral order has not been abolished, of course. The fact that pornographers pose as (moral) champions of the First Amendment may be the clearest evidence that we still have in our civil society some sense of morality, and within that inchoate germ of self-realization lies the best hope for a moral reawakening. The inescapability of an order of good and evil, which is not ours to command but by which we will eventually be measured, is a steady pressure on our individual consciences, and it is made manifest by the elaborateness of attempts to deny it.

The problem is to find a way to make this moral order a presence in the public square amidst the dominant ethos of relativism. The Republicans have the best prospects, because their traditionalist intuitions are closer to the answer most of us seek. But they need to recognize that the problem is not completely new and that it has been successfully tackled in the past

edit

Wherever the exercise of self-restraint begins, it has the inestimable value of forcing the recognition that we live within an order of limits. Our rights are not a poisonous brew destined to subvert any sense of difference between good and evil. We may not be able to define to our satisfaction where the line is to be drawn. But we can discern clearly its outer limits. The unambiguous recognition of such boundaries is an indispensable element in preserving the awareness of a moral order beyond our construction. Without that awareness we would eventually cease to regard respect for an order of mutual rights as itself something right.

An order of rights without right is simply that. Only if we recognize this do we have any chance of retaining contact with an order of right beyond rights. What we have a right to do may not in fact be right to do. The difference is crucial and it must be embedded in the law itself, because only then can we prevent the collapse of the morally right into the legally right.

Acknowledging the limits of the law is indispensable to preserving the recognition of a moral order beyond it. Conversely, relieving legality of the burden of moral rightness is also indispensable to its preservation. The legal and the moral must remain distinct if they are to perform their roles of supporting and facilitating one another

------------------------------------------------------------
Rights Without Right

[Max in Utah]

Situational ethics.

[k2blader]

The Renaissance, beginning centuries before the 18th century Enlightenment, was preeminently a period when all of the talents and energies of poets, architects, builders, sculptors, and painters were focused on glorifying God.

How "far" we've come...

[HighFlier]

Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias was shown a piece of modern art where everything visible was not as we think it should be.

The piece of art was a "home" with windows on the floor, doors on the ceiling, half completed walls etc....

At the end of the viewing, Ravi was asked what he thought of the art. His response was, "Did they do the same thing with the foundation?" Everyone laughed, because that would have been ridiculous.

This story is a perfect illustration of the "moral free-loading" in our society today. The foundation has to be the same as our country was founded on or the entire structure would collapse. Groups like gays, feminists and other liberals can spout their tripe, live deviate lifestyles, but only on the surface of our society.

If it were ever attempted to base a society on say, homosexuality, clearly it would collapse.

[international american]

Jim Robs brother just died...go to thread.

[HighFlier]

I posted my condolences to him on that thread. Thanks.

[Focault's Pendulum]

I will eventually like to contribute to this conversation. It is spectacular that we have arrived at this road.

I'm old enough to enjoy the discussion

[Tribune7]

ping

Thank you, btw.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

"I do not judge anyone who has your stance, I pray for them..."

Thank you very much. All good wishes, in all forms are greatly appreciated. All bad wishes in all forms are to be treated appropriately.

America can use all the blessings you and I are willing to provide
Michael Frazier

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Truly moral people are moral because they know that behaving that way is the surest way to a satisfying life. They don't have to overcome temptation or fear, they simply are.

This is where I disagree. Many of the tenets of morality actually restrict us from behaving in ways that we might find more satisfying. Keeping promises when they are inconvenient, denying sexual gratification, honesty, etc. All of those require that we give up something that we might want at the moment. What tangible reward do I have for not sleeping with an available partner, especially if we are careful to avoid pregancy and STDs? None, on this Earth. So, if I were to go the way of "behaving that way is the surest way to a satisfying life," I might very well not be behaving morally (as defined by a society that believes in marriage and fidelity).

Morality is not the justification of what we want; it is the denial of what we want but what centuries of experience and tradition have told us we should not have...

[qam1]

Situational ethics.

HUH?? In what situation is slavery, genocide, rape and human sacrifice morally acceptable?

The only thing wrong Midianites did that I can see is that some of the guys in Moses' gang liked some of their women. Even if this was somehow wrong I can't think of any reason the little Midianite girls & boys deserved their fate.

[Blue Collar Christian]

qam1 wrote:
"How do you know abortion, slavery, pedophilia, genocide,human sacrifice are wrong when not only does the Bible not condemn them, it actually encourages them (See Hosea 13, Exodus 21, Numbers 31 and the whole book of Joshua for example)

Plus if not being religious makes you immoral how do you explain

1) Atheist/Agnostic are ~15% of the population yet make up just 0.2% of the prison population

2) From 1991 to 2001, The Number of the non-religious doubled in number while at the same time the number calling themselves Christians declined by 10% this decline in Christianity is especially seen in young people.

Yet the even though the younger generations are the most unchristian violent crime rate has declined through this period, as well as The pregnancy rate for unmarried women has continuously declined through the 1990s and the abortion rate dropped by about 25 percent for both married and unmarried women through the 1990s , The teen Pregnancy Rate Reached a Record Low, More Teenagers are saying no to sex and Drug use by teenagers continues to decline.

If lack of religion caused those things, Then why as there are more & more non-religious people are those things in decline instead of increasing

3) Born Again Christians are just as likely to divorce as are Non-Christians"

Two things; (1)know the enemy (2)pray for your enemies.