LegalizeThought

Who we are is an old and constantly revisited question. It’s common for people to immediately identify themselves as their soul, as opposed to mind and body presumably. What is the soul? How does it differ from mind and body? What result becomes of the answers?

I started as a genetic product of my parents. I have since been shaped through my perspective of experiences and my environment. My perspective is often influenced by some biological process such as the human life cycle, survival or procreation instincts. More importantly, I see myself as a force that influences others in various ways, and is also influenced by them.

(Body * Environment) = Perspective * Experience + Social influences = ME

How much of that is my "Soul" ? If my soul existed independent of my body, what would be left? Could I call that *Me*? I know my perspective would have to change drastically without my body. Memories of my experiences are stored in my brain, so I assume they will go with my body. My social influences and environment would have to change drastically without a physical presence. The only thing left that has not been defined as a measurable part of my body is the elusive "Spark of life" concept, which is the idea of what give life to matter. I don’t believe in this concept, but I have a hard time ruling it out, so consider it possible.

Through a little bit of critical thinking I have determined that the soul is either a "Spark of life" concept, or the only thing left of us when our body expires is the residual influence we have on others.

If your soul is your life force minus memories perspective etc. why is there all the fuss over the after life? How do you reward or punish a spark of life? Without all of the things that add up to you, is that you being punished or rewarded? Or is that a part of you?

I don’t have any opinions on the last questions, but they are important because they are a big tool used by people to rationalize injustice in the world. Maybe someone who claims that justice is served in the afterlife can answer these questions.

Justice is a concept of balance to moral actions. Regardless of our moral code, people want to see some sort of justice. It’s self evident that our observable world has lacks some sort of force that creates a moral balance, and this is unsettling. If you subscribe that people are rewarded and punished in an afterlife, think of this article on the soul, and what part of them justice is applied to.

The concepts of the eternal soul and justice in an afterlife take the scales of justice and put one end beyond a point that we can ever see or know. I am not satisfied with any consolation of an afterlife which I cannot see or prove, or know that I’ll (definition of *ME* applied) enter. True justice must take place in our observable world during the lifetime we have to interact in it.

Good Reference: *here*

Religion is often credited with providing our foundations for morality.
It’s the primary argument for displaying the 10 commandments on government property.
It’s also one of the main points used to scare the people about the possibility of a completely secular or atheist society.
I have seen a lot of attacks / arguments on the morality of various religions, but I rarely see a positive alternative presented.

Here is my very concise philosophy on Secular Morality (Broken into points and premises for easy discussion):
1. Morality is an abstract / metaphysical concept which assumes there is a right and wrong, and tries to define how you can tell the difference.
Morality should not be confused with justice, a judgement that finds a moral imbalance must be found before trying to correct it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
2. Throughout time and cultures, there are very different views on what is considered to be moral, even given the same religious texts for guidance.
From a modern day and local perspective it’s easy to look at other places and times and judge others actions using our current and local guidelines.
We are formed by our culture. It largely defines our perspective on these issues. To a certain degree, I definitely subscribe to Morality being more relative than constant.
Determining the morality of an action is based on its context. It’s the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter, soldier and murderer, liar and guardian of secrets.
But there are some re-occurring themes that offer a glimmer of consistency, which deserves additional consideration beyond saying it’s ALL contextual.
I’m NOT trying to say this is the 100% standard of morality, but it’s definitely a substantial portion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

3. There are several sources credited with being the foundation of morality. From my perspective and evaluation I believe the foundation of morality to be Empathy.
Empathy is something most of us are born with. A lack of empathy has been directly associated with deficient areas of the brain.
Empathy is the ability to feel as someone else does from their perspective. Empathy is easier the more similar you are to the person you are trying to empathize with.
Empathy is NOT putting yourself in someone elses position, it MUST include their perspective. For example: You are a heterosexual man. You are very opposed to gay… anything.
If you are thinking of yourself in a guys position, and trying to imagine being with other guys, it’s not empathy. The empathetic position would be
"If I discovered I had a sexual attraction to the same gender would I…"  This could be very difficult to achieve. This is the basis for the "Golden Rule" so it’s important to understand fully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

4. The "Golden Rule" is one of the consistencies found in moral discussions throughout cultures, probably because it’s relative and stays relevant throughout cultural changes.
The basic idea is to treat others how you want to be treated. This idea might not seem like a good one if you think of some very deranged individuals, but that’s not the correct concept.
When the ethics of reciprocity are applied at a societal level, and using empathy, it’s a very powerful guideline. This guideline does NOT make everything relative, there are some things that remain consistent, and therefore can be given a moral standing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

5. "Free Will" is the primary rule that can be found from applying the golden rule.
To end someones life, or remove their freedom of will is to automatically impose your will over theirs.
You cannot follow the "Golden Rule" and make a decision to end someone elses life against their will.
Even if you want your own life to end, that’s a decision you have made. This is why understanding empathy is important in applying the commonly known golden rule.
It’s not based on actions, it’s based on perspective.

I have many other angles and points that might fill in some gaps here but this is already much longer than I intended it to be and I think it gets my viewpoint across.

In summary: Morality = Right and Wrong judgements = contextual + golden rule + empathy * society level of context.
Religion often gets mixed into the context but is not necessary for determining morality.