mine comes from history' an no it has'nt changed.

I base my morality on daytime TV. Whatever they say, it must be true; otherwise they couldn't say it--right?? OK, just kidding. I'm a secular humanist. In general, I go with the Magna Carta (habeas corpus, but hold the god stuff, hold the kings), and the principles of secular humanism. They're quite similar to what Jesus preached, minus the god stuff. I suspect that was added later, by superstitious people who need to believe in supernatural woo-woo stuff. http://www.google.com/search?q=principles+secular+humanism&btnG=Search&num=20&hl=en&safe=off&sa=2

At The Feet of the Master http://www.atthefeetofthemaster.com/index.html

From what feels right to me, as well as my experience in life so far. The bits that are based on the latter have changed a bit overtime, yes.

My morality comes a little from my parents taught me but a lot from life experience. My morals have changed a LOT over time and change daily.

>>...take the stance that I have no morals and then act and react according to the situation. I think that's how most of us operate. We act first, then afterwards we 'explain why' we did what we did. Psychologists call it rationalization or justification. It's no different for Christians or secular humanists. >>Assuming I am not a sociopath.... It just occurred to me that 'sociopath' is the polar opposite of 'humanist.' I'll have to ponder that. If you hear pondering noises, it's just me. :)

>>why is so often that theories do not translate into practice? What theory? What practice? Are you thinking of something specific? If not, please do. [Addendum: I mean, please do think of something SPECIFIC.] >>The more population, the more technology, the more communication, it seems creates more potential for conflict. Maybe _less_ communication will bring peace. Old couples who don't talk much seem to last longer. What does any of this have to do with religion? It's hard for me to get worked up over abstract nouns and generalities. What's really on your mind? Start with that, and maybe it will lead to general principles. You can't start with generalities and hope to apply them to real events in your life that may or may not occur.

My morality is based in the Bible, and it has changed very little over time. What has changed about me as I have grown is that I am more empathetic than previously. I now see that people can behave immorally, yet still be good people, and that they are going to make HUGE mistakes because they are people.

I would say it comes from my parents partly, but most of it seems to just be instinctive human morality, if you believe in such a thing. Most of it seems to have always been there for as long as I can remember.

Rose I can't remember where this thread was located. Anyway, thanks for the etymology of 'moot.' Fascinating. My views on anarchy? Which of these definitions are you thinking of? 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of government 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder. ================================ Your anarchy comment reminds me of your rhetorical question regarding theory vs. practice: I believe that anarchy is a hopelessly idealistic socio-political concept that doesn't work for real humans. It belongs in your 'works in theory but not in practice' file. Anarchy is like a hole in the water. It is soon filled. However, it makes a good pseud for a female: Ann Arky

It comes from various places, a lot from church and God related activities when I was growing up and a lot from watching my maternal grandparents and seeing what was moral about their behavior. Yes, it has definitely changed over time!!

Me: *You can't start with generalities and hope to apply them to real events in your life that may or may not occur.* You: >>isn't this what we do by trying to define morals.... I don't know who tries to define morals, other than preachers and theologians. And even they, like the majority of us, don't start from scratch and "define morality." We start with what we learned from our parents, just as they did. Most rules are based on avoiding the consequences. When an ornery brat starts school at age 5 he quickly learns the consequences of his behaviors. He doesn't "define morals." If a big kid annoys the brat, and the brat hits him, the big kid will grab the brat and bang his head against the wall, the desk, the floor and inflict PAIN. The brat learns the consequences of hitting another kid. (He might also learn how to bully smaller kids.) Nobody "defines morals." Where do you get this abstract stuff? We all just do what WORKS. 9/10 of morality is just a combination of pragmatism and cynicism, spiced with painful memories. The 10 commandments have proved socially useful (functional) for millennia, among all cultures. I feel certain that even the commandments did NOT start as somebody's attempt to define morality. They started among our ancestors while they were still swinging from the branches, stealing food from one another, smacking a rival you caught porking your mate. Eventually the troop observes that certain behaviors disrupt the peace & tranquillity of the group, and the group (over time) decides to forbid these behaviors and punish them. But none of these social rules started with a bearded chimp gazing at his navel, scribbling notes on a clipboard, and "defining morality." It doesn't start with abstract principles. It starts with pragmatic observation of *real events*. Now, what real events are troubling you? Please, forget the generalities. They're not real.

what you sow is what you reap. Strong moral foundation will not deter over time, that's a fact.