"Morality"

Got a beef with the flock?

"Morality"

Postby Solitude=Peace » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:39 pm

I am getting real sick and tired about hearing various people claim that
morality came about because of religion.

Where there not groups of people who lived in the past without killing
and raping eachother?

Also, why do many people assume that if your religious, then you must be
a decent person? If your just being a decent person because of some promised
reward(eternal life in paradise), you really are just a hypocrite. It kind of makes me wonder how some of these so-called "decent individuals" act behind closed doors.

I guess it just pisses me of that so many people get away with such
heinous acts, simply because they claim to be religious.
Living in perpetual fear: I don't recommend it.
User avatar
Solitude=Peace
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: How in the hell am I supposed to know?!

Re: "Morality"

Postby MakeItStop » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:19 pm

Solitude=Peace wrote:Where there not groups of people who lived in the past without killing
and raping eachother?


If you take it from a religious point of view, no.
If you take it from a scientific point of view, yes.

Before the most ancient of religions, there was probably still a sense of right and wrong. Our instincts would have been helping preserve the human race. But i guess, we didn't need to think about coveting our neighbor's wife, or stealing money from them, because they didn't have a wife or money. And if I stole his meat, he would punish me himself and that would be sorted, without someone else's help.
Only two things are infinite : human stupidity and the universe, and I'm not quite sure about the universe - Albert Einstein
MakeItStop
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:04 pm
Location: The land they call Eng

Re: "Morality"

Postby Ms. Anthropie » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:54 pm

Maybe early "morality" was just "You really shouldn't do that because bad things may happen as a result of that - I've seen it happen before!"

Morality exists to preserve the species. The end.

Maybe.
Ms. Anthropie
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:40 pm

Re: "Morality"

Postby Nietzschean » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:33 pm

I am going to disagree here.

I usually see this argument brought up and the problem is that people are constantly referring it to a Judeo-Christian system of morality and then saying that without said religion, we would still have they same system of morals.

Erm, no. First thing right off the bat is that there are far more religions than we could imagine, some of them stemming from the earliest stages of civilization itself. We cannot be certain that some parts of our moral system did not stem from that. Modern medical ethics stem greatly from Greek philosophy and mythology, not to mention that as the it modernized, various other cultural and religious beliefs were mixed into what is considered ethical.

Modern morality is very cut and paste. Does all morality come from religion? No, I definitely would not say so. Does some morality come from it? I would say yes.

If you would honestly believe that nature > nurture, then you could say that morality is a natural instinct or something of the sort. If however we are discussing that morality comes from God, then this topic is pointless - the answer is no. But from religion, I would say yes. There are many, many different theories on civilization that you can read and piece your own conclusion together.

And tell me this; is morality from the state any better than morality from religion? So would you argue that no system of morality (even in current use) came from an authority figure? Hmm.
User avatar
Nietzschean
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: "Morality"

Postby cartmanland » Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:52 am

Christopher Hitchens has covered this over and over again in his debates. Morality comes from one place and one place only - human solidarity. Religious people, of course, would claim that it comes from the holy books. But guess who wrote those books. Also, religious people think that if we were to abandon our religions we would instantly become savage beasts, which a) proves religious people are full of shit, b) means all atheists are blood thirsty maniacs, and c) means all believers are angels. All of this is, of course, completely untrue. The truth is that with ot without religion we would be exactly where we are today, from point of view of morality. We would be asking the same questions and giving the same answers. And finally it's you're not your, author of the OP!
User avatar
cartmanland
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:43 am

Re: "Morality"

Postby Solitude=Peace » Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:27 pm

And finally it's you're not your, author of the OP


Also, why do many people assume that if you are religious, then you must be a decent person? Now it's fixed. Are you happy now?
Living in perpetual fear: I don't recommend it.
User avatar
Solitude=Peace
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: How in the hell am I supposed to know?!

Re: "Morality"

Postby Nietzschean » Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:22 pm

cartmanland wrote:Christopher Hitchens has covered this over and over again in his debates. Morality comes from one place and one place only - human solidarity.


As does civilization. What Hitchens does not acknowledge however is that religion has played a huge role in civilization throughout the ages. This is a well beaten path that philosophers have trod down on over and over again, and religion, whether as a controlling state or as a source of enlightenment, has given certain morals an aspect in society. Moreso it has given justification to many of the 'morals' as ridiculous as they seem.

As much as I love Hitchens (he is my favorite person currently living, see thread in Other than that), his disdain and intolerance for religion has done enough to impede on his personal beliefs on philosophy and its contributions to humanity.

The truth is that with ot without religion we would be exactly where we are today, from point of view of morality. We would be asking the same questions and giving the same answers.


Not true at all. This is simply the case of believing that if we are born and not raised within social restrictions, we will still act in accordance of what is right.
User avatar
Nietzschean
 
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: "Morality"

Postby captnbeaver » Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:50 pm

Solitude=Peace wrote:Also, why do many people assume that if your religious, then you must be
a decent person? If your just being a decent person because of some promised
reward(eternal life in paradise), you really are just a hypocrite. It kind of makes me wonder how some of these so-called "decent individuals" act behind closed doors.


That's where the catholic priests molest young boys, Muslim "whatevers" plan murder in the name of a book, where married "religious" couples gag ball each other, while clad in leather apparel, and practice acts of deprivation that would make an old hooker blush.
We are all capable of good as equally as we are of evil. That's why I am a firm believer that when you are a religious hypocrite, you have to be bad in the equal extreme that you portray yourself as good.
But what do I know? I'm just another dumb f**ck.
User avatar
captnbeaver
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: ottawa, canada

Re: "Morality"

Postby tigerblood2116 » Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:19 pm

This is an interesting question, C.S. Lewis wrote a fair amount on this in his book "Mere Christianity". If I may include a few paragraphs pulled from the first chapter:

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no
sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.


I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.


Later on he goes on to discuss his beliefs regarding who put this "Law of Nature" into humans, but for the purpose of this question, I thought it provides some good food for thought.
tigerblood2116
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:37 pm


Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests