Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I'm accountable to something far greater--my own sense of what is right and what is wrong. I'm answerable only to myself for my actions--shall I do good and be a good, kind, considerate person, or shall I do evil and be an unkind, ungenerous person? Shall I fill my thoughts with love and fellow feeling or hatred and judgment? Shall I treat others with dignity and respect, even if they don't return the favour?
I like to think I do all of these things, most of the time. Certainly I do them more often than some people who call themselves "religious," though by no means am I special--many people who are religious do them too, for the same reasons.
The point? You don't need accountability to a deity to guide you towards a moral life. If you do, then you're not actually behaving morally--you're just avoiding immoral behavior for fear of punishment by a more powerful being.
The first doctrine is responsibility and self-reliance. The second is submission to authority. I know which one I prefer.
|
Yes, but if that authority subscribes to the same things that you aspire to in your first paragraph, and in the end, accomplishes the same thing whether by fear or otherwise, then what's the difference?
Do you not see the benefit of having a moral code with which you can periodically recalibrate your behavior towards others?