Is morality dependent on religion?

[IglooDame]

Isn't this a debate between moral absolutes and moral relativism?

My standpoint is that without Faith, there are no moral absolutes.

"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" isn't a moral absolute?

"Do no harm" isn't a moral absolute?

 

[JoeM]

I concur with both posts above by civ2 and atlas14.

 

[Veritass]

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is a metaphor for when humanity evolved from a purely animal / instinctive mind to a human / thinking mind regarding actions. Before this point in time, there was only what occurred, not any good or evil attached to it. After this point in time, action could be labelled as having good or evil attached to it.

This wording is specifically chosen: good and evil are not absolutes; they are value judgements that we attach to actions. For example, a particular aboriginal society believes that a woman's father should deflower the woman the day before her "wedding" to prepare her for her new husband. By our standards, this is wrong, but not be any objective standards. These judgements can certainly come from a purely logical standpoint of what is best for society tempered with what is best for the individual. They can also come from thinking that may not be logical; for example, I support the arts so that the amount of beauty in the world might be increased. It is not really a logical decision, more of a feeling decision.

The intuitive mind can also be used in deciding what actions are good and evil. One must be careful to distinguish between what feels "good" and what feels "right", however.

 

[MobBoss]

Logic can provide morals if used properly, I use logic to provide my morals. It's just a tool to help us think clearer.

Logic does not always give a good answer. If 20 people are living in a place with only food/water/oxygen to let 10 survive, logic dictates 10 should die so the rest could survive. How do the 10 to die get chosen? And is it moral to kill 10 people to 10 others can survive?

 

[civ2]

Veritass
Your post is half-true.
The "tree of knowledge" caused humans to create their own pair of "good-evil" in opposition to previous "right-wrong" which was defined by God.
Since then these two pairs sometimes coincide and sometimes oppose each other.

 

[Azmorg]

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is a metaphor for when humanity evolved from a purely animal / instinctive mind to a human / thinking mind regarding actions. Before this point in time, there was only what occurred, not any good or evil attached to it. After this point in time, action could be labelled as having good or evil attached to it.

This wording is specifically chosen: good and evil are not absolutes; they are value judgements that we attach to actions. For example, a particular aboriginal society believes that a woman's father should deflower the woman the day before her "wedding" to prepare her for her new husband. By our standards, this is wrong, but not be any objective standards. These judgements can certainly come from a purely logical standpoint of what is best for society tempered with what is best for the individual. They can also come from thinking that may not be logical; for example, I support the arts so that the amount of beauty in the world might be increased. It is not really a logical decision, more of a feeling decision.

The intuitive mind can also be used in deciding what actions are good and evil. One must be careful to distinguish between what feels "good" and what feels "right", however.

So, if it feels "right" do it? Using feelings to determine one's decisions in life, as one's moral compass is terribly fraught with the opportunity for error and bad judgement. For if good & evil are not absolutes, then there is no reasonable base-line from which society can determine how its citizens should behave. The question of whether you can be moral without being religious pre-supposes that religion is capable of providing the moral absolutes. I submit that it is not. Religion is a system of rituals, of ways to "worship". One can practice a religion with out actually believing any of the tenets of that religion. And if moral absolutes are derived from one's religion, then it is possible that a truly messed up religion can impart truly messed up morals. So where do morals come from? I would suggest that many in this world, many in this country (the good ol' USA), many that have posted in this thread would say that morality is relative, that what's moral for me is not necessarily moral for you. Hence the example in the post I've quoted about the father deflowering his virgin daughter. Well then, if morality is relative, if there are no moral absolutes, does it not follow that anything goes? If there are no moral absolutes, why is it wrong for me to kill you? Hmm? Why? You will of course answer that the law says so, or that my liberty can't infringe upon your rights, or some such. But who makes the laws, who decides whose rights supercede? Who? Who says? Many will answer that it is society, the majority that decides. If we in our society say that it is wrong to murder, then it is wrong. Well, what if I get enough like-minded people together and we decide that it is ok to murder and that we're going to murder you? Wouldn't that then be ok? After all, we're the majority. Or are there moral absolutes after all? Well, are there, or aren't there? If there are, where do they come from? Again I ask, who decides? I will argue that there are moral absolutes and that they do not come from religion made by man, but from Holiness that comes from God. Only a Holy God is qualified to establish what is moral. So now you ask, whose god? Or, how can you set one societies god above another? I answer with the same logic. If we treat each and every god as equal, then we are right back at determining god/morality by popular vote. If enough of us get together and decide that we're going to worship a god that says murder is ok, then who are you to say it's not? Again, I say, only an absolutely Holy God is qualified to determine moral absolutes. So, do morals come from religion? Absolutely not. Morality comes from the righteous character of Almighty Holy God. And the only way to be a moral person, is to be in right relationship with Him. It's not about religion, it's about relationship.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Logic does not always give a good answer. If 20 people are living in a place with only food/water/oxygen to let 10 survive, logic dictates 10 should die so the rest could survive. How do the 10 to die get chosen? And is it moral to kill 10 people to 10 others can survive?

The 10 get chosen based on logic. (You had to see that answer coming )

Yes, IMHO it is moral. Humans have had to make this difficult choice before.

What is battlefield triage if not the logic-based decision of who lives and who dies? The medics direct actions or inactions decide life and death. If one man has the codes to prevent a terrorist's nuclear explosion or knows valuable intel that will save the lives of his fellow soldiers wouldn't his life be more valuable than other lives?

Your example is of death by active action and mine is of death by inaction (helping someone 'valuable' and allowing someone else to die), but the result is the same. Given your scenario I would kill 10 people so the other 10 could survive. I wouldn't like having to do it, but my conscience would be clear because it was the best possible outcome for a very terrible situation.

I don't see any need for religion in my making this moral decision.

 

[Paradigne]

This whole argument is a chicken v egg thing, which is really quite simple: If you believe in creationinsm, the chicken came first. If you believe in Evolution the egg came first (the mother of the egg being not quite a chicken).



The question put forth by the OP is nothing like Mobbosses comment.

 

[Sidhe]

What happens if you believe in intelligent design and evolution? Scrambled egg?

I have no reason to believe that without religion you are not moraly whole.

 

[MobBoss]

The 10 get chosen based on logic. (You had to see that answer coming )

I am willing to bet that the 10 get chosen on who is weakest.

Yes, IMHO it is moral. Humans have had to make this difficult choice before.

Ah, but is it moral in that it happens or is it only moral in HOW it happens. If the 10 strongest toss the 10 weakest out, is it still moral? Perhaps not to the 10 weak ones it isnt.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

This whole argument is a chicken v egg thing, which is really quite simple: If you believe in creationinsm, the chicken came first. If you believe in Evolution the egg came first (the mother of the egg being not quite a chicken).

Yes, but not exactly for everyone. Most religious posters on this forum are christian so I'll use christianity as my example. Feel free to substitute your religion of choice as desired as it works for most of them.

Your religion is only 2k to 3k +/- years old depending on how it's measured.

Therefore morality came before your religion, and therefore isn't dependent on your religion.

You can say 'religion' came before morality, but we would need to define 'religion'. If this pre-christian religion is what morality is dependent on then wouldn't that be admitting that a heathen religion can define a valid morality all by itself without any christian influence? If a heathen religion can provide morality then what need is there of any additions from christian morality? If the 'modern' addition of christian morality to the already defined morality is some sort of improvement then that would open the door to the argument that morality can be improved upon as the situation changes and new advances become available. If christianity can improve morality then why can't other modern innovations improve our changeable morality?

If morality is fixed and unchangeable then there would be no need for any relatively recent christian changes.

If morality is an evolving code of ethics that adapts to the times then saying that christianity's obsolete 2000 year old guide book is the final word on morality would be then be unreasonable.

The bible fails to address may of today's moral issues (even when christians can agree amongst themselves what it really says and means). This brings up the questions: Do we even want our morality to be dependent on any religion, old or new? Isn't that just asking for confusion and misunderstanding? Is that really the best we can do?

 

[MobBoss]

The bible fails to address may of today's moral issues (even when christians can agree amongst themselves what it really says and means).

I would disagree with you whole heartedly.

 

[Veritass]

I say, only an absolutely Holy God is qualified to determine moral absolutes.

Unfortunately, "He" did not seem to provide us with any clear indication of these moral absolutes. Please don't bother pointing at the bible, for why would "He" only provide these moral absolutes to a portion of humanity? Better "He" should have made it clearer, such that every time you tried to do something against the absolute morality, you were overwhelmed with the desire to vomit.

 

[warpus]

I would disagree with you whole heartedly.

But you agree with his other points? I'd like to see you address them if you don't.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I am willing to bet that the 10 get chosen on who is weakest.

As we both can guess this may well be the actual result, but would not be the moral choice under either your moral code or mine. Reality has a way of bumping morality aside when things get tough.

Ah, but is it moral in that it happens or is it only moral in HOW it happens. If the 10 strongest toss the 10 weakest out, is it still moral? Perhaps not to the 10 weak ones it isnt.

It is moral based on how it happens (see above answer). If I use logic to pick the 10 that must die I wouldn't necessarily just choose the weakest. Of course I would try to make their deaths as quick and painless as possible.

 

[MobBoss]

Your religion is only 2k to 3k +/- years old depending on how it's measured.

How do you know this? Remember Christianity is simply a continuation of Judeism. Do you know exactly when Judeism began? And/or when morality began?

Nope.

Conjecture all you will.

 

[MobBoss]

As we both can guess this may well be the actual result, but would not be the moral choice under either your moral code or mine. Reality has a way of bumping morality aside when things get tough.

Which is precisely why I say todays moral codes are based upon religion and not the "might makes right" type of moral code found in pre-history.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I would disagree with you whole heartedly.

No problem.

Examples from another post:

...May of today's modern ethical questions aren't really covered by older obsolete religious laws. What's the bible's position on intellectual property rights of digital photos posted on the internet for example? How about real estate claims for particular pieces of property on the moon? What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?

I could quote more 'modern-era only' ethical and legal questions if you like.

As technology and civilization advance new creations and ethical issues we can't even imagine today will be develop and must be dealt with. One of my main problems with religion is its inability to adapt to our changing times.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

How do you know this? Remember Christianity is simply a continuation of Judeism. Do you know exactly when Judeism began? And/or when morality began?

Nope.

Conjecture all you will.

Ask a religious scholar and I suspect they will agree with me as to the age of christianity. What's the oldest date-able historical event in the bible?

I admit I'm not a bible historian but it's not much conjecture to see that paganism predates christianity, and thus for the purposes of my illustration is a valid point.

--------

Which is precisely why I say todays moral codes are based upon religion and not the "might makes right" type of moral code found in pre-history.

The OP question was "Is morality dependent on religion?" and I offered logic-based morality as an example of a morality not dependent upon religion.

"Might makes right" is not moral under either religious or logic-based morality.

Just because reality often takes an immoral path doesn't really address the OP question. For whatever it may be worth I would prefer people follow religious ethics that no ethics at all, as is often the case for many people today. I believe what you may be calling "today's moral codes" aren't moral codes at all but are the lack of a moral code, immorality, or just simply bad behavior. If you know what's right but still choose to do wrong then that's not following any moral code at all. Maybe a new thread "Today's immoral behavior sucks!" could discuss this.

 

[Sidhe]

Which is precisely why I say todays moral codes are based upon religion and not the "might makes right" type of moral code found in pre-history.

If I might interject, have you ever read any philosophy Mob Boss, particularly that of the renaisance and beyond, it's not difficult to grasp morality devoid of religous context or an attempt at divorce, with religion as a slice of the pie but not the whole pie. I can't see as how religion hasn't had an influence, but to me the best examples of morals are philosophical and stem more from a will to evolve the terms of the argument. I've just started reading a book on Ethics and it's history at the moment and religion makes up a single chapter, and a small one at that, not surprising as it plays a smaller role than it once had when many of the philosophical players are atheists and agnostics.

If you really want to argue or posit that morality cannot exist without religion, then I sugest you read some material produced by people who did just the opposite, removed morality form any religous context, acknowleged it's input but sought to move away from the scriptual confines of philosophically and societally backward cultures. You no doubt will disagree with philosophies division from religion since the renaisance, but it would make your argument stronger knowing what the enemy thinks? Just a thought.