If it feels good, do it...?

     What kind of world would we live in if we all did what made us happy. Even in a strictly secular philosophical sense, is it a valid belief system that claims just because something " feels natural" to us, we can do it. Many people will argue that living a happy life is our utmost priority, and that happiness comes from doing things that make you happy. While I believe that God wants us to be happy, I do not believe satisfying our every desire is what we're put here to do. If every one was allowed to pursue their happiness by whatever means they felt were out there, what kind of world would that be?  When I talk about the origin of governments and civilizations with my students I always use this analogy:

Let's say that we were the first humans on earth. Let's say that we are peacefully co-existing until I realize that I want a deer, however, said deer is in your possession. So now we have a problem. I would be happier with this deer, but to make that happen I will have to get it from you  ( My method of choice would be clubbing you and  taking it).

All's right with the world right? Of course not, I would have done you an injustice by taking what was  yours simply because I wanted it. Now this may seem like a  dumb little story, but I believe bigger issues are at play. I believe we must acknowledge that wrong was done here. To me this acknowledgement of wrong is central to defeating the reasoning that we can do what we want to with no regard to an objective moral right or wrong. I believe, there is either an ultimate, objective right and wrong, or we must say that there is none and do what feels good. Moral relativism is defined by Stanford Ecylepedia as

"Most often ... associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a meta-ethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons."

Even people who would say they do not believe in an objective right and wrong, will often promote or execute some moral code. Their reasoning may be, that they don't want to wrong anyone, or they will do what causes the least problems, but if we take the approach that one should be able to do what they want to such limits shouldn't be placed.

So in a nutshell, I believe that it is evident from how history  has played out and how we reason while living our everyday lives, that there is some common standard which includes us limiting our actions and not doing bad.

With that said, my next question is " Is it really wrong to look at a world with so much bad, injustice, selfishness, hate, and hurt and to want better" My standard is the God of the bible, but even by humanistic standards, can we really look at the world we live in and say it's okay?

The Wrong Approach

I read this a while back and it really struck a chord with me. I know a few atheist and agnostics, and have a few friends in both camps. While there was a time when I was not sure about the spiritual realm, I am astonished by the pride and hostility this writer expressed towards  any potential God that may be out there and that calls his creation to follow his rules.

That said, here it is :

"I'm sorry. But I refuse to feel guilty for enjoying things such as sex, or seeing sex on a screen for visual stimulation. Immorality? Are you kidding me? What's moral about making others feel guilty, NEH, TERRIFIED of something that is more natural than the very clothes on our backs? Sex is a natural thing. And, therefore, is natural to crave. In fact, never to crave it, especially for those on the side of the human race with more testosterone, probably have a hormone imbalance going on somewhere.

I'm not a religious person. At all. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a good person. I'm generally nice, and respectful towards my fellow human being. I try to help where it is needed. And I live a happy life with those I cherish.

I don't believe that there is a "God". But I don't really care if others do or not, provided that they don't try to push such things upon me. What I take offense to is what I stated in the first paragraph. Making others feel guilty for natural things.

If your "God" is all-seeing, and all-knowing, then he or she will fully understand why I do not believe. And on the off chance that I AM wrong, and there IS a "God", and they don't let me into "heaven" merely because I didn't dedicate every last of my waking moments to serving their will, or apologizing for any little I do that occurs within nature, yet is frowned upon in your little book, then he/she is probably a ****And that's not a being I'd want to spend eternity with."

 Considering that the whole previous post was quite a mouthful, I will take several entries to give my thoughts on it. I will base my response on these 3 points:

1. Against our nature- What kind of world would we live in if we all did what made us happy. Even in a strictly secular philosophical sense, is it a valid belief system that claims just because something " feels natural" to us, we can do it.
2. Are we good?- For an evangelical Christian I am as humanist as it gets. I believe God created us "good" and there-in lies our potential. However, everything around us contradicts the claim that we are a bunch of good people. Especially when we are measure against the standard I believe we were created to live by.
3. With the ramifications at stake, and especially with the acknowledgement that there maybe a supreme spiritual being, do we really want to take the approach that if it doesn't meet our standard we will denounce it and write it off? Doesn't that seem kinda backwards. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to humbly approach the creator of the universe seeking to understand and execute its will for us?

So the next post will be my thoughts on acting against our nature. Hope somebody reads it!
Any thoughts let me know!