>>1427932
First of all, if you are not religious you do not have morales. Morality comes from righteousness. If you are not religious then you do not believe in a 'right and wrong' but instead you have integrity.

For example I do not think killing is wrong. But I would not kill another human being. Because that goes against my integrity, I would be stripping that person of their freedom. Their life.

So what to do when one acts in a manner that defies their own integrity. Will punishment do anything? You already had reasons to believe you shouldn't of done that thing, but you did it anyways. You will feel guilt, but to act in a way that breaks your integrity is hypocritical. You are saying one thing and then doing another. You are corrupted.

So the answer I guess is to deal with your corruption. That is what you must do.

Don't do it again.

>>1427932
Determine and implement a course of action that will lead to non-recurrence of this mistake in the future.

For some things punishment might be the way that you keep yourself from making further mistakes but that's up to the individual. For some things society may decide it needs to become involved in the process of ensuring non-recurrence of the mistake.

>>1427954
t. undergraduate

>>1427992
Jokes on you I'm a NEET.

>>1427954
>you do not have morales
>you have integrity
noun: integrity

1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

>>1428020
Sorry. I just like to distinguish between the two because whenever you say morals people automatically think "killing and stealing are wrong!" when integrity is up to each and everyone of us to decide.

>>1427932
The Thoms in the painting get me every time

>>1428029
>integrity is up to each and everyone of us to decide.
You've had an entire lifetime of having your 'integrity' subconsciously drilled into you, but yea, you decided.

>>1428069
If I am a member of society which has laws does that restrict my freedom?

Can the law stop me? No. I can still disobey the law. So I am free to do as I choose. But then to be angry afterwards at the consequences, being locked up in jail is causality. Causality does not restrict freedom.

So yes I do think I decide.

>>1428029

except it's not

many of the moral imperatives codified by law now and religion back in the day have biological pre-determination

experiments were done with other social mammals and the results have shown our notions of fairness and justice are integrated in them as well

of course with our cognitive complexity we can interpret those inborn let's call it instinctive mortality with far more flavor than other mammals

so, even a-religious person have moral imperatives that are both biological in nature and social in upbringing


if we equate morality with law abiding then Island - one of the most a-religious nations is one of the most crime free, this correlation of course cannot be considered a causation in pure form but it re-affirms the notion that a-religious people can and often are moral

>>1428103
I could ask you if your morals are my morals and vice versa. They are not. Everyone has integrity but no two people follow the same integrity. What I view as right and wrong is not what society views as right and wrong. We may overlap on certain issues but that doesn't mean I don't act according to my own code of conduit.

I am not biologically conditioned to feel guilty after pointless murder if I believe the murder did not violate any code of conduct.