Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Morals, who has them, who does not.

Lets get to something else that burns me.  When someone comes along and claims someone else has no morals.  What are morals, well lets see what the dictionary says about the matter?

mor·al  (môrl, mr-)
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong.

So now that we know what morals are, lets sit and ponder for a few moments.  What is moral, what is morality? Is it moral for someone to turn their back on another who is in need?  Is it moral to steal?  Maybe kill?  If you said no to these, you would be considered moral.  Here is the problem, I can say one thing, and do another.  I can say it is wrong to steal, but still carry out the action of theft.  That is the problem with people who constantly proclaim their morals are better than others.  You say one thing, you do another.  If someone comes to me and says they are in need, I do not second guess them, I do not suspect them, I help them.  If it is a scam to get money for boozes or drugs, so be it.  But if it is a legitimate I need food, gas, or shelter, I have helped them.  Either way I do not need to be concerned that they are doing without, I do not need the reassurance they are using the money I gave them as intended.  I gave them the ability to get what was needed, if they use it for a fix, its no longer on me.

Notice this picture.  Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists have the most donations.  So the article this image comes from states that Atheists always claim they are being good for goodness sakes, and just drags down Atheists.  Honestly, the author says he wouldn't give money to this man because, well he is playing on tribalism ( Homeless Man Runs Contest To See Which Religion Gives Most ).  Yeah, I am sure he is, and I am sure that if the man was in need (he might have been) you might have given to him.  I am not an atheist, but what I have observed from people I know of a specific religion, when presented with a problem, they always seek to find an out.  Hey I am here Propane Powered Heater or here, Transcript Fees, or I am trying to help these people out Richardson Family Charity, I need help, I cannot help these people all alone.  Guess what I have observed?  If you said more atheists quietly helping a Jewish family, a man who is down and out, or trying to help an elderly couple, you guessed right. 

Now if the authors of Creative Minority Report want to contend this argument, I will just say alright.  I am not concerned about which faith a person is, or is not.  That is the problem, everyone always wants to jump up and say, I help, but what I am concerned about is, do they really help?  There is the hitch about morals, and empathy.  You can scream to the stars you are moral, you have empathy, but when it comes down to it, the proof is in the pudding.  Think about that for a few moments.