Ethical Vs Religious

[Twisted_Sister]

Do you believe a person can be ethical and not be religious?

[Miss Darcy]

Yes.

__________________

[ShoutGrace]

How do you define "ethical"? :D

Anybody can be anything and act anyway they want. The question is whether their behaviour is rational, reasonable, or foundationally correct.

[Virgil]

Ethical based on what? Aztecs believed in human sacrifice. I'm sure by their standards the average Aztec was ethical.

[cuppajoe_9]

My philosophy professor phrased this question as "Can atheists have moral values?"

My reply: "You're not serious?"

A lot of yelling followed.

[Redzeppelin]

Did any of the yelling answer the question? The question may indeed be absurd - but sometimes questions that seem absurd seem so because the basis of the question (or underlying assumptions implicit in the question) was not understood by the listener (or properly articulated by the questioner).

[mtpspur]

IYes. I meet them all the time and work with several people who integrity and moral values put my personal life to shame. For me though I do not practice religion I try to live within it as a relationship with my God (whoi I believe to be the God as revealed in the Bible) thru the Lord Christ. I hope this sense because the more I read this I'll admit I'm not sure what context your question is related too either.

Rich

[subterranean]

Do you believe a person can be ethical and not be religious?

I don't really see any correlation between the two.

[Virgil]

Well, Subby I think what the question alludes to is whether witout a fixed codified set of morals, and codified by devine rule, then how does one avoid relativism and evolving ethics to convenience. Yes, I believe that atheists can be ethical, but if everyone were atheists then over time one would be quite shocked as to what was moral.

[cuppajoe_9]

Did any of the yelling answer the question?No. His position is what basis to atheists have for morality? My position is that his position is irrelivant, because we obviously do behave morally in general, or at least no less morally than theists. His counterpoint is that there is a relationship between Charles Darwin's theories and Hitler, and therefore that a materialistic set of beliefs leads to bad things. My response was that neither of those men were materialists. It somewhat degenerated from there.


Yes, I believe that atheists can be ethical, but if everyone were atheists then over time one would be quite shocked as to what was moral.What evidence do you have of that?

[Sancho]

I might be compelled to play a mental game by taking the “not” out of the original question:

“Do you believe a person can be ethical and be religious?”

I mean, if you’re trying to live your life ethically and basing your moral code on something that is laid out in the <your book here> (Bible, Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc) and if you break that code – you go to Hell; well then, you are only acting in your own best self interest.

[Virgil]

What evidence do you have of that?

Well, I guess I don't know a society that is completely atheist. Even the countries that might have majority atheists are probably only a generation from not being so. So my reasoning must be extrapolated from the social mores as the evolve. Here's something that struck me over the weekend as we had a little debate beween vegetarians and meat eaters. A large portion of vegetarians based their decision on a compunction to killing animals. As I cycled through the vegetarians I know in my personal life (not lit net) I was struck at how many are vegetarians, pro-abortion, and atheists. Now how does one evolve to where animal life is actually more valued than a unborn baby? The only way I can understand this is that that person has an unfixed moral guideposts that evolves with convenience.

[cuppajoe_9]

A large portion of vegetarians based their decision on a compunction to killing animals. As I cycled through the vegetarians I know in my personal life (not lit net) I was struck at how many are vegetarians, pro-abortion, and atheists. Now how does one evolve to where animal life is actually more valued than a unborn baby?Straw man, because the people who are pro-abortion aren't 'pro-abortion'. Nobody would be unhappy if abortions suddenly stopped happening, and it seems like we're getting closer to that, now that Plan B is over the counter most places.

I have seen stuides that suggest that heavily irrelgious countries have lower rates of teen abortion.

[Virgil]

Straw man, because the people who are pro-abortion aren't 'pro-abortion'. Nobody would be unhappy if abortions suddenly stopped happening, and it seems like we're getting closer to that, now that Plan B is over the counter most places.

Well, that's just another form of aborton. So if you're not pro-killing you're against murder personally but it's a person's choice whether they should perform one. No one is "pro-abortion" but one and a half million are performed annually in my country. Hmm.



I have seen stuides that suggest that heavily irrelgious countries have lower rates of teen abortion.
Like which ones? I've never heard that.

[cuppajoe_9]

Well, that's just another form of aborton.You are, quite simply, medically wrong. Plan B prevents conception. If you take it while pregnant, it won't work.


Like which ones? I've never heard that.http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

[Virgil]

You are, quite simply, medically wrong. Plan B prevents conception. If you take it while pregnant, it won't work.

Oh, I thought that was referring to the abortiojn pill that has come out. I guess i don't know what plan B is. OK, that doesn't change the arguement; you're still missing my point about the disconnect between pro-abortion and vegetarianism for ethical reasons.


http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html
Oh please. Statistics are a funny thing. Frankly that is nonsense. The countries mention while yes currently less religious certainly have based their principles on Judeo-Christian tradition, and were not irreligious as recently as a generation ago. They had lower murder rates even prior to becoming irreligious. There is a complexity here that can't be modeled by a simple histogram.

[kilted exile]

Sorry but this is nonsense. Non-religious people can be ethical, religious people can be unethical. Societies based on religious grounds commit atrocities and societies which are not based on religions commit atrocities. This is quite clear through history. No group has a majority on ethics and there is no such thing as the moral majority.

[Virgil]

Sorry but this is nonsense. Non-religious people can be ethical, religious people can be unethical. Societies based on religious grounds commit atrocities and societies which are not based on religions commit atrocities. This is quite clear through history. No group has a majority on ethics and there is no such thing as the moral majority.

Kilt, I have agreed that within an existing framework of ethical rules, it doesn't matter whether one is religious or not. What I've questioned is how does that framework change over time if there are no established, codified rules? And in order for rules to not evolve (to be codified), they need to have a divine stamp. How else does one arrive at the moral relativism of today, where it's ok to kill an unborn baby, ethical actually, but unethical to kill a chicken for dinner?

[kilted exile]

Ok, I dont want to get too far into the abortion issue as it will drag things incredibly off-topic and it is a far too politicised argument. However I will address it briefly:
Firstly there is the point of when it is ethical to abort the baby/foetus (sp?) and time period before it actually classes as a baby instead of a foetus which is too undeveloped to be called a human (processes of thought/feeling etc) - not familiar with US Law but I believe abortions are not available after the pregnancy has progressed 3 months in the UK.
I think even the staunchest (well perhaps not the fanatics but....) supporters of abortion can think of cases where adoption may be the better solution, However there are times when abortion is an ethical choice to make (child is due to the woman being raped; child is likely to be born with no quality of life or will die very quickly afterwards; Possible complications during birth which may cause the death of both mother & child)
It should be remembered also that if abortions were criminalised, this would not mean that they would not take place; desperate people do desperate things and many would attempt "backstreet" abortions which would be extremely dangerous.
**I will not reply to abortion questions on this thread for reasons stated earlier, if you want to respond to me about this subject send a PM**

As far as the killing chicken bit goes, I see it more as a personal choice rather than ethical thing - but then I like to eat chicken, so maybe I am not the best person to try to explain this point.

However, to add to the contradictions you gave about "irreligious societies" perhaps someone can provide an explanation for this religious society ethical contradiction:

When I was in High School Scotland repealled a long standing legal clause called "2A". This clause made it illegal for schools in Scotland to teach homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable choice for adults to make. One of the groups who were most opposed to this repeal were the church (both Protestant & Catholic - in fact Pat Robertson quite famously referred to Scotland as "a dark country run by homosexuals") The contradiction however is that at the same time as objecting to this the Catholic Church was attempting to cover up sexual abuse of altar boys by members of the piesthood and - in case anyone feels I am being overtly critical of the Catholic church here - a branch of Protestantism (the Anglicans) recently attempted to install a homosexual bishop.

So, after all that what really is my point, mainly that I do not believe ethics is a subject where you can have codified rules as Virg suggests. I think Ethics has far too many "gray" areas to make a set of rules which work for all situations

[Logos]

General mod note to all: please do not make this topic about abortion.
Any posts after mine with such content* will be edited or removed without further notice.
*too many problems here in the past about the subject, too divisive, too contentious, too closely skipping along the political lines for this forum - thankyouverymuch
.
.

[Virgil]

My whole point being that moral/ethics are relative and evolving with time when something is not codified in a religious rule. That's my whole point and no other.

[Redzeppelin]

No. His position is what basis to atheists have for morality? My position is that his position is irrelivant, because we obviously do behave morally in general, or at least no less morally than theists.

Right - because his question wasn't really whether or not athiests can be ethical - it's probably more like "Why should they be ethical?"

This is the point I was making: the question is geared to examine the basis of our behavioral choices. Because societies throughout the history of the world have largely been based in some sort of religious system of belief that informs human behavior, I think the professor's question is relevant because the recent pre-eminence of science (probably beginning during the Enlightenment) and resulting decrease in religion as a social framework brings into question what exactly is the basis of ethical human behavior. Since religious belief largely guided the ethics of human history, I think it's reasonable to ask what's the basis of ethical behavior once the primay/pre-eminent foundation of that ethical behavior is not regarded as having any real authority. The idea that his question is absrud implies that - in the absence of religion - there is a clear and stable basis for ethical behavior.

The question is - what is that basis? I agree with what Virgil is arguing (I have argued similar ideas elsewhere [the "Objective Moral Values" thread, I believe]): without a clear, stable basis for behavior, there is no reason why people should behave in any way at all. The "religious" person who sees ethics as based in Divine authority obeys those laws because he understands that these laws are established by a being of superior knowledge and character. Without the authority of Divine law, the atheist now must base his ethics on - what? Majority rule? Might makes right? What feels good? What the government tells me? General principles of "good" (whatever those are)?

I do not question if atheists can be moral - Kilted Exile pointed out the truth that there are ethical atheists and unethical Christians: yep, that is very, very true. But - the basis for the ethical behavior of both is different.

[kilted exile]

The "religious" person who sees ethics as based in Divine authority obeys those laws because he understands that these laws are established by a being of superior knowledge and character.

Ok, I am going to assume you are basically referring to the 10 commandments when you talk about divine laws, of course excluding the ones about the worship of other gods etc which are not so much ethical as statements of faith/belief. The issue I have is that only by my reckoning 2 of these work in all situations:

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." ~ In all situations, if my parents are the most despicable creatures ever to walk the earth am I still expected to honour them?

"Thou shalt not kill." ~ how about self defence, and how does this relate to the death penalty or "an eye for an eye"

"Thou shalt not steal." ~ I cant speak for others but I know if my family was starving or in need of medication may well resort to attempting to steal the necessary things (bread/medication etc)

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." ~ Jealousy/Desire is the basis of a capatilist society (however I wont stray too far into this due to rules on politics *another of those PM things methinks

So that really leaves us with "Do not commit adultery" & "Do not bear false witness" The adultery thing is possibly questionable I'm not sure of status of divorce within religion and whether a second marriage counts as adultery or not. However I am perfectly willing to accept that there is no situation where bearing false witness is the ethical thing to do.

So even these "divine laws" have been altered to suit the realities of the world we live in, it goes back to my earlier point that in Ethics there are too many gray areas to impose set laws.

[cuppajoe_9]

The countries mention while yes currently less religious certainly have based their principles on Judeo-Christian tradition, and were not irreligious as recently as a generation ago.True, but irrelivant, because I did not say that being irreligious made you a better person. What I said was that there is a negative correlation between the irreligiousity of a nation and the rate of teen abortion. That statement was factually correct. Make of it what you will.


This is the point I was making: the question is geared to examine the basis of our behavioral choices. Because societies throughout the history of the world have largely been based in some sort of religious system of belief that informs human behavior, I think the professor's question is relevant because the recent pre-eminence of science (probably beginning during the Enlightenment) and resulting decrease in religion as a social framework brings into question what exactly is the basis of ethical human behavior.If that is what he meant, the question should have been "why should anybody behave morally?" It's a very good question because, if we push it hard enough, we have to conclude that the morality of the theist is built on air just as much as the morality of the atheist.

[Virgil]

I made my point. Only thing I want to add may just be a little off topic but related. It's quote from the move Goodfellas, a mafia movie:


Henry Hill: For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked sh**ty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again

If there is no universal justice, then we who follow the rules are exactly what Henry Hill says, a bunch of suckers. Perhaps a mafia person is the extreme, but what it tells people is that one should be self centered. It's all what you can get for yourself and what you can get away with. Anything else is stupid.

[cuppajoe_9]

If there is no universal justice, then we who follow the rules are exactly what Henry Hill says, a bunch of suckers.Completely false. Following the rules (or at least some of them) is in your interest as much as it is in everybody else's. If you don't kill people and steal things, you get to enjoy the benefits of living in a society where you can be reasonably sure of not being killed or robbed.

[Virgil]

If you don't kill people and steal things, you get to enjoy the benefits of living in a society where you can be reasonably sure of not being killed or robbed.

Killing people is the extreme. There is a lot between that and being ethical. You don' realize how much people get away with. It would probably make your stomach turn. Next tme you're at a car repair place, think about how much is on the level. And if they see a woman come in, then they've hit the jackpot for the day.

[cuppajoe_9]

Killing people is the extreme. There is a lot between that and being ethical. The same is true for any ethical principle worth following.


You don' realize how much people get away with. It would probably make your stomach turn.It's unfortunate.

[Theshizznigg]

The answer to the question is yes.

Ethics while it has roots and ties in the different religions of the world is not tied to religion in general. Hence you may take a religious man who may become corrupt, and a non-religious man who lives an exemplary life.
The main role of religion in society is a connection to a creator, and the belief of what happens after one dies.
While religions do carry ethical lessons, it can be easily assumed that if everyone complied within these ethical lessons then they would not really be lessons to live by, they would be the norm, and society as such would function differently.
Ethics themself are fundamentally bred into the human psyche. We all have rules of which we live by, rules by which we judge accordingly. We judge right from wrong, just and unjust, because of a basic instilled humanity in all of us. While this humanity is much stronger in some people and weaker in others, it applies to all human beings. We in society can establish when a person is unethical only by study of their different habits, and actions in society. We cannot judge effectively as groups, since the human mind is such that you will always find the good with the bad, and so we must judge accordingly to the individual.
So to say that all atheists are unethical, is like saying all Christians are good, or that all fish are blue, or all apples are red, or all criminals are inherently evil. One cannot argue the fact effectively without making themselves look like either a fool or a bigot.

[Virgil]

Ethics themself are fundamentally bred into the human psyche. We all have rules of which we live by, rules by which we judge accordingly. We judge right from wrong, just and unjust, because of a basic instilled humanity in all of us.

Are you saying that all societies have the same ethical code? How come some societies sanction human sacrifice or subjugation of women or torture and some don't? How come in some places it's ok for a parent to physically punish a child and in other places it's called child abuse? I don't believe ethics are innate. Certainly they are part of a cultural identity. Certainly they evolve over time.

[Twisted_Sister]

LYING CHEATING KILLING STEALING ARE STILL WRONG, EVEN TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD OR HAVE NO EXPOSURE TO ANY RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE.



Ethics, to me, can be separated from religion just as easily as it can be fused with it. If we look at the number of priests who have been accused and found guilty of child molestation, we can conclude that despite being religious, they were not ethical. Likewise, I don't think a person needs religion to know what is right and wrong.

[Redzeppelin]

Ok, I am going to assume you are basically referring to the 10 commandments when you talk about divine laws, of course excluding the ones about the worship of other gods etc which are not so much ethical as statements of faith/belief. The issue I have is that only by my reckoning 2 of these work in all situations:

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." ~ In all situations, if my parents are the most despicable creatures ever to walk the earth am I still expected to honour them?

No. "Honor" means accord them due respect; it does not imply that you agree with, go along with, or support immoral, destructive behavior. "Honor" means accord them due respect - but if they are not honoring their commitments as parents, then they are forfeiting the respect due to them as parents.


"Thou shalt not kill." ~ how about self defence, and how does this relate to the death penalty or "an eye for an eye"

The original language means "murder," rather than kill. And again: the commandment does not indicate that killing another human being is absolutely forbidden. The 10 commandments must be considered in relation to the rest of the Bible - not in isolation. God specifically commanded certain people be put to death.

As well, we are to resist evil: if that means killing an intruder to protect my wife and children, I believe God permits that killing. God does not ask me to lie down and let evil violate me. In terms of the death penalty, the Bible does seem to imply (not sure exactly where, sorry - do a word search for "blood" and it'll show up) that death is the appropriate consequence for certain crimes. The New Testament revised "eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek" (which does not imply be a doormat; it implies that you do not return evil for evil, and that little slights are not worth pursuing).


"Thou shalt not steal." ~ I cant speak for others but I know if my family was starving or in need of medication may well resort to attempting to steal the necessary things (bread/medication etc)

God would permit/forgive this - for the same reason He'd forgive the person who lied about the Jews in his basement that the Nazi's were asking about. God is not a "bean-counter" in terms of sin: He knows that situations often require different responses from different people. The intention matters to God: it is what is in your heart that matters. Stealing to save a life (while not desirable) is from a different place in the heart than stealing to get a better car (unacceptable).


"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." ~ Jealousy/Desire is the basis of a capatilist society (however I wont stray too far into this due to rules on politics *another of those PM things methinks

Economic philosophy aside, envy of the property/possessions/relationships of others is a chief source of discontent in the world - and discontent people do stupid things: have affairs, engage in illegal behavior, manipulate, cheat - you name it. People who are content with what they have are the happiest people in the world.


So that really leaves us with "Do not commit adultery" & "Do not bear false witness" The adultery thing is possibly questionable I'm not sure of status of divorce within religion and whether a second marriage counts as adultery or not. However I am perfectly willing to accept that there is no situation where bearing false witness is the ethical thing to do.

So even these "divine laws" have been altered to suit the realities of the world we live in, it goes back to my earlier point that in Ethics there are too many gray areas to impose set laws.

Would you really question the value of staying faithful to one's mate? In terms of the Biblical injunction against divorce: it's not that divorce is never an option - but that we need to be more careful and exacting in terms of who we pick. According to God, marriage is a spiritual union that only death disolves. That means that we can divorce away if we wish, but that our relationships will still carry inside them difficulties because we are separated from someone whom the Bible says we "became one" with - and I don't think God is just being poetic and metaphoric in that: I think He's literal. We "carry" the spouse with us forever - perhaps that explains why second marriages have such a drastically lower success rate than first marriages.

The point is not so much the exact configuration of these commandments as the authority behind them. The commandments are not the end-all, be-all of Christian morality: the New Testament gives plenty more about how Christians are to behave, and we are always to consider the commandments in terms of how they resonate with the rest of what God tells us in the Bible.

[kilted exile]

See, I think one of the hardest things about going with divine law is I never know when it is to be taken metaphorically or litteraly (actually reminds me of a funny incident at Sunday School where someone was trying to explain literal & Symbolic to us, but that is a story for another day and time).

I think the way that people will interpret these teachings differently to establish ethics is an example that we have already gone through a period where we already have decided to make rules based on our own interpretation of "good' giving a specific example of the scenario related to stealing. We have decided ourselves that god would accept(probably not the correct word) that, however I do not know of any part of the bible that offers the distinction (possibly not strange given the minister at the church I attended as a child was of the fire & brimstone persuasion).

If we can make our own ethical distinctions in this case based on interpretation of what is "good" I dont see why we would not be able to make our own basis for other ethical decisions based on interpretation of what is good and best for society.


Slightly off-topic:

With regards to the failure rate of second marriages, I would suggest the reason may be down to the fact that the person is not "cut out" for long term relationships


Further off-topic:

The commandment about jealousy (in combination with the good samaritan parable) is in fact the reason I think Christianity fits in more with socialist (not communist) leanings rather than capatilist, but that's all I'll say here on the matter.

[Redzeppelin]

See, I think one of the hardest things about going with divine law is I never know when it is to be taken metaphorically or litteraly (actually reminds me of a funny incident at Sunday School where someone was trying to explain literal & Symbolic to us, but that is a story for another day and time).

I think the way that people will interpret these teachings differently to establish ethics is an example that we have already gone through a period where we already have decided to make rules based on our own interpretation of "good' giving a specific example of the scenario related to stealing.

If we can make our own ethical distinctions in this case based on interpretation of what is "good" I dont see why we would not be able to make our own basis for other ethical decisions based on interpretation of what is good and best for society.

But that's the thing: I think God gave us rational, intelligent brains so that we could make decisions on our own. Slavish, "letter-of-the-law" commandment keeping creates scary fundamentalist zealots. Christ Himself alluded to the idea that the spirit of the law is what we must focus on - not the letter. In fact, Christ Himself saved His harshest confrontations to the Pharisees - the local religious "police" who were constantly trying to hem Christ in using the Jewish law.

The importance of Divine Law is that its basis becomes immune to total human revision/rejection. We may make decisions based not so much on the commandments but on the principles of Christian behavior present in the Bible. Sure: we may revise a bit, but the difference is this: we cannot ignore divine law or dismiss it. If ethics are based on majority rule, might-makes-right, etc... well, those are all subject to overhaul and complete rejection if society so desires. If ethics are subject to total invalidation in such ways, the only thing that made them binding was our agreement. How can real, transcendent morality be the product of consensus?

[cuppajoe_9]

Are you saying that all societies have the same ethical code?I think what Theshizznig is saying is that, while specific ethcial codes are not innate, the tendancy to think in terms of right and wrong is.

[kilted exile]

If ethics are based on majority rule, might-makes-right, etc... well, those are all subject to overhaul and complete rejection if society so desires. If ethics are subject to total invalidation in such ways, the only thing that made them binding was our agreement. How can real, transcendent morality be the product of consensus?

Well ignoring the "might makes right" part as I agree that is an unworkable (if not unethical) way of deciding right and wrong - the majority rule part I have no real problem with, so long as it is combined with proportional representation.

We have already overhauled and rejected things which used to be acceptable as society evolved and decided it was not a ethical way to carry out things - as one example forcing Jews to live in Ghettos during the middle ages & the use of torture as a means of interrogation (purification through pain).

I can think of one example of morality formed ny consensus - the UN charter on Human Rights

[Redzeppelin]

the majority rule part I have no real problem with, so long as it is combined with proportional representation.

And this is a necessity, certainly. But - even with equal representation - what is the basis for the majority's decisions as to what is moral or right? Expediency? Convenience? Political correctness? Poplarity?


We have already overhauled and rejected things which used to be acceptable as society evolved and decided it was not a ethical way to carry out things - as one example forcing Jews to live in Ghettos during the middle ages & the use of torture as a means of interrogation (purification through pain).

I can think of one example of morality formed ny consensus - the UN charter on Human Rights

But your two examples would hardly be considered acceptable by any society because both examples are expedients utilized by certain groups for self-serving purposes. But - then again - without a clear standard as to what right and wrong is, why should those behaviors be considered wrong and why should they have been "overhauled?"

As far as the UN charter - aren't countries free to reject those mandates? It's fine if the countries agree to abide, but since these laws are majority rule, why should any society agree to go along with them?

[Virgil]

I think what Theshizznig is saying is that, while specific ethcial codes are not innate, the tendancy to think in terms of right and wrong is.

That's who I was questioning, Theshizznig; sorry if I wasn't clear.

We agree that ethical codes are not innate. Interesting point you make about "the tendancy to think in terms of right and wrong." I've never thought about that. Intuitively off the cuff here I would agree but I have to give that some more thought.

[Matilda]

Of course a person can be an atheist and still have moral values. i don't think it's at all related to religion, I know religious people who are great, and some who are terrible persons, and it's the same the other way round.

[Redzeppelin]

Right - and I don't think too many people would challenge that idea. So I think the idea being tossed around here is the question of where the atheist's moral foundation comes from and what gives the atheist's ethics a stable and authoritative identity. I suppose the question is not can an atheist be moral, but why should one be moral? Beyond a Hobbesian idea of social cooperation for reasons of self-preservation, why should anybody be moral?

[Nightshaper]

Moralities are instilled by society and help enforce religious values, and because of that we view morals and religious practice as one and the same, but by right they are different.

Good and evil do not exist in this world, because everything is based off the perspective of the individual not a religion. religion is just one factor that help play into the circumstances of moral judgment. Morals themselves are just dependent of the event.

[Redzeppelin]

Moralities are instilled by society and help enforce religious values, and because of that we view morals and religious practice as one and the same, but by right they are different.

I think it's the other way around: religious morality is reinforced by society.

"Religious practice" is a vague term that may mean a lot of things. But, if morality is "instilled" by society, why does society choose the moral standard it does - and why should it choose any particular moral standard over another?


Good and evil do not exist in this world, because everything is based off the perspective of the individual not a religion.

I find this statement outrageous - sorry, but I don't know what other word to use. If I raped, tortured and killed your child, sister, mother, wife/husband, whatever - just for the thrill of hearing them scream, I'm pretty sure you'd call that "evil" - and you'd be shocked and outraged at anybody else who looked at that horrific behavior and called it "ok" because of their particular "perspective." I'm fascinated at the abstract philosophizing that relagates "good" and "evil" to mere subjective existence. That reasoning only holds water if you're willing to accept that all behavior has no intrinsic quality of "good" or "evil" - even the most extreme ones I listed. The minute you say "well, some things are obviously evil" then you are appealing to an objective standard of good/evil.

PS - welcome to the forums

[Orionsbelt]

There is too much info on this thread for me to digest in this one sitting. Having said that the answer to the initial proposition seems to be embodied in the person of Confucius.

[Nightshaper]

I find this statement outrageous - sorry, but I don't know what other word to use. If I raped, tortured and killed your child, sister, mother, wife/husband, whatever - just for the thrill of hearing them scream, I'm pretty sure you'd call that "evil" - and you'd be shocked and outraged at anybody else who looked at that horrific behavior and called it "ok" because of their particular "perspective." I'm fascinated at the abstract philosophizing that relagates "good" and "evil" to mere subjective existence. That reasoning only holds water if you're willing to accept that all behavior has no intrinsic quality of "good" or "evil" - even the most extreme ones I listed. The minute you say "well, some things are obviously evil" then you are appealing to an objective standard of good/evil.

PS - welcome to the forums

i would view that as wrong yes and perhaps in just, but not evil, who am i to judge your motives, if you feel that is right then to you it is, but to myself or everyone around you might think differently. who am i to try and give reason to your action? im not a supreme deity in anyway. But as well, in my beliefs i have extreme sanctioning for EVERY action that is taken, or not taking sometimes.




"Religious practice" is a vague term that may mean a lot of things. But, if morality is "instilled" by society, why does society choose the moral standard it does - and why should it choose any particular moral standard over another?

"religious practice" is at least in my eyes, the installment of knowledge, morals and rituals in relation to a religious belief. These standard are seen as within culture and passed on from person to person. that is why society is enforced by religion and because of that, religious morals are enforced by society.

the ideas of good and evil are just another idea planted by religion as a form of sanction for action to instill a manor of living which the society views as proper. using my beliefs as an example, I view it wrong to harm any form of life, plant, animal, or other for any reason, even self defense. that being said, just because i view it as wrong doesn't mean i see it as "evil"

[Redzeppelin]

i would view that as wrong yes and perhaps in just, but not evil, who am i to judge your motives, if you feel that is right then to you it is, but to myself or everyone around you might think differently. who am i to try and give reason to your action? im not a supreme deity in anyway. But as well, in my beliefs i have extreme sanctioning for EVERY action that is taken, or not taking sometimes.

You cannot be serious. You would view the rape, torture and death of a loved one as "wrong...perhaps injust, but not evil?" I am stunned; absolutely stunned. How can you treat my example as a mere ethics scenario? This horrifying scenario happens in real life, to real people, somewhere in this world, perhaps even right now - do you really expect me to believe that this would be your response? You need not judge my motives - it's my actions I'm asking you to judge; and, what motive could possibly justify such actions committed upon an innocent party?



the ideas of good and evil are just another idea planted by religion as a form of sanction for action to instill a manor of living which the society views as proper. using my beliefs as an example, I view it wrong to harm any form of life, plant, animal, or other for any reason, even self defense. that being said, just because i view it as wrong doesn't mean i see it as "evil"

You might have a tough time flying this philosophical idea past Holocaust survivors, rape victims, torture victims, parents of slaughtered Columbine high school students. People who have survived the worst that humanity can dispense can hardly call it anything but "evil." "Wrong" describes a mistake, a misstep, a crime - yes. But "wrong" does not do justice to the atrocities of which humanity is quite efficiently capable.

[ennison]

Ethics created by ourselves favour us; ethics created outside ourselves contain us.
Living by ethical beliefs is never enough however. We are always capable of modifying ethics to suit our own particular desires and the easiest to modify are those we created in the first place. Absolutes are less easy to muck about with.

[Redzeppelin]

Well said (and concisely too :) ).

[JGL57]

You cannot be serious. You would view the rape, torture and death of a loved one as "wrong...perhaps injust, but not evil?" I am stunned; absolutely stunned. How can you treat my example as a mere ethics scenario? This horrifying scenario happens in real life, to real people, somewhere in this world, perhaps even right now - do you really expect me to believe that this would be your response? You need not judge my motives - it's my actions I'm asking you to judge; and, what motive could possibly justify such actions committed upon an innocent party?




You might have a tough time flying this philosophical idea past Holocaust survivors, rape victims, torture victims, parents of slaughtered Columbine high school students. People who have survived the worst that humanity can dispense can hardly call it anything but "evil." "Wrong" describes a mistake, a misstep, a crime - yes. But "wrong" does not do justice to the atrocities of which humanity is quite efficiently capable.

And your god stood by and let it all happen. So much for the alleged "absolute" basis of standards of morality.

Einstein said it best: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

I don't think anything much need be added to that - other than to point out that a person need not be an Einstein to figure this out - this should seem obvious to a thinking person of average intelligence or better.

[Redzeppelin]

And your god stood by and let it all happen. So much for the alleged "absolute" basis of standards of morality.

Einstein said it best: "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

I don't think anything much need be added to that - other than to point out that a person need not be an Einstein to figure this out - this should seem obvious to a thinking person of average intelligence or better.

Thanks for your input. The same God who "stood by and let it all happen" also allows you the freedom to mock Him. Pretty cool, eh?

[JGL57]

Thanks for your input. The same God who "stood by and let it all happen" also allows you the freedom to mock Him. Pretty cool, eh?

Actually not so cool. Forgot that I'm an atheist? I assume the existence of your god as a hypothetical in order to discuss with you this imaginary person and his personal problems, moral and otherwise.

So don't take this so seriously - I don't. Your god is a joke. And I like to joke around. But IF your god was real, I would kick his ***. (or is that "her"?)

[Redzeppelin]

Actually not so cool. Forgot that I'm an atheist? I assume the existence of your god as a hypothetical in order to discuss with you this imaginary person and his personal problems, moral and otherwise.

So don't take this so seriously - I don't. Your god is a joke. And I like to joke around. But IF your god was real, I would kick his ***. (or is that "her"?)

Well, since He's real to me, I think it's cool - because it affirms that God is love - and His love is demonstrated through the freedom He gives all His creatures - including yourself - to mock and disrespect Him. And, even better: should you someday realize that He's real, He will absolutely forgive you and accept you as His child. That is awesome.

("Kick" God's "***"? Oh, that's funny. Or wait: were you serious?)

[JGL57]

Well, since He's real to me, I think it's cool - because it affirms that God is love - and His love is demonstrated through the freedom He gives all His creatures - including yourself - to mock and disrespect Him. And, even better: should you someday realize that He's real, He will absolutely forgive you and accept you as His child. That is awesome.

("Kick" God's "***"? Oh, that's funny. Or wait: were you serious?)

Again, all this based on your belief that an imaginary person is real. All this is hypothetical. As for mocking and disrespecting, that's rich. You and people like you mock and disrepect all of us who have no literal belief in imaginary persons. So - who died and make you king of the world?

[Redzeppelin]

Again, all this based on your belief that an imaginary person is real. All this is hypothetical. As for mocking and disrespecting, that's rich. You and people like you mock and disrepect all of us who have no literal belief in imaginary persons. So - who died and make you king of the world?

Find somewhere in my posts where I have mocked your lack of belief in God. I do not think atheists' beliefs are silly at all - I think science offers pretty convincing evidence for the atheist. There's nothing mock-worthy in my mind about the atheist's faith in science. It makes perfect sense to me.

How did my post indicate in any way that I believe I'm royalty? Are you feeling OK?