>>84160664
Everyone's morality comes from what they "feel" is good. Morality from religion is exactly equivalent to morality from any other system. I would argue that all morality comes from a form of religion, and in the modern age, that happens to be the dogmas of liberal progressivism.

I am agnostic and i get my morality from the christian ethos. I know also that everyone in the west, who belongs in the west, also get their morality from the christian ethos be they atheist or pagan.

>>84160664
I get it from religion ill be honest. But not entirely. And there are parts of said religion that I dont like or agree with. But do think religion needs to be divinity ordained, or else it would be subjective in some way

>>84160664
I don't have morality for myself, only on what I deem as acceptable for others.

If I can get away with doing something I want to do with minimal or no repercussions, I will try it. If there are significant chances of receiving repercussions, I may not do something I want to do. If I see someone else doing something I want to do but I have resigned myself to not doing it in fear of repercussions, I may join in or I may instead shame and attempt to give them repercussions. All humans think this way. Morality is a code that one wouldn't break regardless of repercussions for ulterior reasons, such as to build influence or appear holy. In that way, morality is just the positive version of the selfishness that all harbor and we are typically better guided by punishment than by rewards

I was born a Jew but i became a Muslim. I dont really see the point in living if Abrahamic religions are false. I live my life for studying whats the true religion of God and how to get a passage for heaven, and i got convinced of the truthfulness of Islam but i studied even extremely obscure sects and even smaller religions, like Mandaeism. Im a sunni muslim. If i were to be told theres no god or that the god is from a pagan religion, id kill myself

>>84160688
Exactly this. Everything I do, I do because it makes me feel good. When I help someone out or do a good deed, it has nothing to do with the person I am helping and everything to do with how it makes me feel good about myself. I could rush into a burning house to save someone trapped inside and it wouldn't be out of concern for the well being of that person, but rather how feeling like a hero would give me an ego boost.

It's all just another way for my narcissism to express itself. It just so happens that I'm not a particularly hedonistic person so my self-aggrandizing actions skew good rather than harmful or malicious, but it cold have just as easily been that way if I were that kind of person.

Intuition desu, but I'm also fully self-aware that I don't have a solid foundation for my morals. Some things I can still be absolutely convinced of being wrong, but I just can't find that one, fundamental rock to build anything else on, so for now I'm just being arbitrary and gut-feel-y.
>>84160688
I'm not sure. For example, Catholicism puts heavy emphasis on believing its tenets not just when you feel they're right, but also when you feel they're wrong, since if you didn't you'd just be agreeing with and rationalizing the beliefs you yourself already hold and not actually wholly submitting yourself to the will of God (and you'd also risk extreme sectarianism). That's part of religion's strong side, that it can convince you of moral judgements beyond your own feeling.

I am amoral and irreligious.
Basically I do whatever the fuck I want, except for things that are likely to result in receiving acts of violence from other people or the state. After all, government and police are just other people.

>>84160911
>I'm not sure. For example, Catholicism puts heavy emphasis on believing its tenets not just when you feel they're right, but also when you feel they're wrong
That's part of what feels right. Following God itself is what feels right, in the same sense that someone can "feel" exterminating Jews is right but also "feel" wrong about a particular thing they're doing. Still, they adhere to the overarching moral system which they feel is right. This is the same with, for instance, allowing children with only mental illness to receive elective suicide in Canada. Leftists may "feel" wrong about this case, but nod their heads in solemn silence to the priests who divine the will of progressive secular religion.

>>84160911
>>84161496
>This is the same with, for instance, allowing children with only mental illness to receive elective suicide in Canada
In the sense not that it is currently happening, but that it will as of 2027.

>>84161496
Well, in that example, exterminating jews would almost certainly be the particular thing and not the broader moral basis for their actions. It doesn't really make sense to place that as the ultimate motive or justification. Maybe you could say that they feel that serving their country and people is right but that they feel wrong about killing jews, which they choose to override since the feeling of rightness of serving their country and people takes precedence over their feelings on particular actions.

>>84161696
You actually can't choose what is an ultimate end in itself and what isn't, or what is ultimately an action required of a moral system and what isn't. Extermination of the Jews isn't justified by the moral imperative that it's ultimately morally Just because X Y Z, those ends may merely be justifications for the simple fact that one hates jews and it feels good to kill them. If your moral imperative is
>Do good thing
or
>Minimize suffering
Then exterminating jews could be a part of either of these as a particular action which you doubt but ultimately believe is necessary, i.e., if you subscribe to the many esoteric traditions that place Jews in the position of an ancient Saturnine cult, or if you believe there is a mere rational probability where Jews are a threat because of X Y Z; and you may feel wrong about it but defer to the moral imperative (Jews are bad after all, and your ultimate moral end is Do Good Thing).

Actually, the term "moral" is going to trip you up because "moral" doesn't mean "good vs. evil," this is it's understood definition yes, but in reality "good" is whatever one personally likes and enjoys and "evil" is whatever one dislikes and is displeased by. There is no moral quality attached to it (i.e., I am displeased when children are raped, I FEEL bad, and I attribute evil to the this bad feeling), this is just how we convey these ideas as a product of language.

>>84160664
why do you retards need other people to tell you what's right or wrong

>>84161696
>>84161747
As another example, someone could simply believe the most morally good thing is manufacturing many pins at the pin factory. This is their sole aim and objective, and every action they take is justified by some method with reference to how many more pins are made. If someone feels jews impede the pinmaking process by 0.34%, unfortunately, the jews must go. Or they have a constellation of unrelated moral beliefs: Make pins, kill jews, increase consumption of fruit based gelatin snacks. Then they must balance one against the other, for instance, Jews may be a huge consumer of fruit based gelatins, in which case a reduction in the jewish population will lower overall consumption of fruit-based gelatin snacks even if it increases pinmaking; ultimately, all of these are desired ends in themselves, but by a purely irrational and subjective process they determibe what "feels" best to do or maximize.

In the modern world, it's vacuous concepts like "least suffering," "equality," and "autonomy" which are balanced irrationally. I am a Christian by the way, I just deconstruct morality solely as a method of attacking liberal ethics.