Is morality dependent on religion?

[CurtSibling]

That's only a summary of the negative aspects of religion. There are positives, too -- being spiritual can have a good psychological effect, for example.

The assessment covers the physical aspect of religion, and that is the most tangible thing the world sees.

I don't care how nice people feel after praying. The bottom line is that religions are utilised by humans to control humans.

.

 

[MobBoss]

I personaly felt, after going through the Ten Commandments, that I lived an immoral life prior to becoming more Catholic. I do admit and say that I still struggle with the old things from my old lifestyle.

Now wait a minute. If you say you did indeed live a immoral life prior to becoming catholic, then why say this: I even had my own morality when I used to be an agnostic. So I kind of hurt my own past so to speek in saying that I was immoral when I was an agnostic.

You were either immoral or you werent. Unless you really want to flirt with returning to that lifestyle, I would say be firm in your belief that it was indeed immoral and dont be uncomfortable saying as much.

I also went through the Commandments and noticed that I have broken many of them by simply imposing my morals onto others. "A new commandment I give unto you, 'That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another'" (John 13:34 Douay-Rheims). When I imposed my morals onto others, I am not loving my neigbor but insted condeming my neighbor.

I dont think you are imposing your morals on anyone by stating your viewpoint. You are entitled to an opinion just like anyone else. Now then, the gospels also call us to remind someone of their sin lest he be lost forever; so you need to decide for yourself which is more morally repellant: risk upsetting someone for simply pointing out sin in their life in the hopes that they may repent...or doing nothing. And in turn, how do you think you will be judged when your time comes?

 

[CurtSibling]

Collaring people about their actions leading to 'eternal damnation' is shaky ground, chaps.

Where I come from, making judgement calls on people is a quick way to social isolation or a busted nose.

.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Not quite. I claim that "good" morality (i.e. do unto others) comes from religion. Not necessarily, the "might makes right" type of morality.

So who decides what morality is the 'good' morality? You? Your religion anything? Everyting is subjective, so what on earth makes you think only 'good' morality comes from religion? And how on earth can morality be 'bad'?

Please give me an example of a morality (not point of law) question that you dont think the bible has the answer to.

Couldn't mate, never read it.

I generally am of the opinion that cultures and religions are inextricably entwined. So I dont think I disagree with you.

Are you saying culture can't exist without religion?
So you completely disagree with idea of the post-modern world then?
What about Stalinist Russia? Wasn't that non-religious, so did they not have a culture?

 

[CurtSibling]

Stalin did bring back the Russian orthodox church, but only in a cynical move to gain loyalty from christians.

He soon put them back in place.

.

 

[GenMarshall]

Now wait a minute. If you say you did indeed live a immoral life prior to becoming catholic, then why say this: I even had my own morality when I used to be an agnostic. So I kind of hurt my own past so to speek in saying that I was immoral when I was an agnostic.

I had the basic moralities as an agnostic such as not killing other people, being kind to others and do onto others as they would do unto you, as well as not judging others. I felt doing the things (such as masturbation and looking at pronography) was quite immoral for me after I reverted back into christianity. However, when I was an agnostic, deep down my heart felt it was wrong though my mind said it was not wrong and natural.

You were either immoral or you werent. Unless you really want to flirt with returning to that lifestyle, I would say be firm in your belief that it was indeed immoral and dont be uncomfortable saying as much.

I felt that the lifestyle that I was in swamped with masturbation and pronography was immoral. However I felt that I had moral values in regards to human to human conduct. There are things when I was agnostic that I have done that were immoral that I am not particulary proud of. However there are things when I was agnostic that I have done that were also moral and would agree with the Christian teachings. Eventhough I have developed my own moral compass without the influence of religion when I was an agnostic.

I dont think you are imposing your morals on anyone by stating your viewpoint. You are entitled to an opinion just like anyone else.

Then why is it then people would state that I am imposing my morals on other people when I say my viewpoints. I know that I am entitled to my opinions, but often times my opinions tends to turn people off. For example, when I say that I support a ban on same-gender marriages and would vote for a canidate who is against same-gender marriages, another person would say "you like to push your morals on other people, dont you?" as well as hearing statements of me being intolerant. Even turner pointed out (in a harsh way) of how intolerant I was in the Marriage thread.

Now then, the gospels also call us to remind someone of their sin lest he be lost forever; so you need to decide for yourself which is more morally repellant: risk upsetting someone for simply pointing out sin in their life in the hopes that they may repent...or doing nothing.

What is morally repellant to me is running the risk of upsetting someone for pointing out their sins in their lives. I dont like to judge other people and I "love thy neighbor". How in the world does telling another person of their sins is not judging and loving thy neighbor when the other person witness to the sinner and offends the sinner. That person would be more turned off towards the gospel, especialy if it's a homosexual.

Hard Agressive Evangcialism is not for me because its esentialy offending people by pointing out their sins, epsecialy if its part of their lifestyle that they dont see as sinful.

Soft Assertive Evangicalism is what I perfer because it does not offend any person. Its basicly living my life the way Jesus has instructed as well as witnessing towards others on how accepting Jesus changed my life. I dont point out other peoples sin because I feel that its up to the holy spirit to touch their heart and mind.

And in turn, how do you think you will be judged when your time comes?

Provided that I attempt my first confession. I feel that I would be judged as a person who is sensitive to other people's feelings and gain entry into heaven.

 

[MobBoss]

So who decides what morality is the 'good' morality? You? Your religion anything? Everyting is subjective, so what on earth makes you think only 'good' morality comes from religion? And how on earth can morality be 'bad'?

Example of "bad" morality. In the United States a current hot topic is Iminent Domain. Its a law where the local government can force you to sell your property to the gov in order to develop the land so that the entire community can benefit. For the life of me, I still cant come to grips on how it is moral to seize someones house their family has lived in for generations in order to build a shopping mall. Thats bad morality.

Couldn't mate, never read it.

Then you dont have much of a basis to comment on biblical matters do you?

Are you saying culture can't exist without religion?

I am saying I dont know of any that are totally devoid of religion.

So you completely disagree with idea of the post-modern world then?
What about Stalinist Russia? Wasn't that non-religious, so did they not have a culture?

Stalinist Russia isnt exactly a good example of success now is it? While the gov may have been atheist, you cannot deny that the "culture" of Russia had definitive religious overtones. Dont confuse a societies "culture" with its government. Not the same thing.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Its not moral to YOUR code....its dang well very moral to those wielding the hammer.

One mans immorality is anothers morality. Case in point....abortion to me is immoral......to many it isnt. I would say that someone who has an abortion, especially for purely selfish reasons has exercised bad morality. But to a lot of people getting an abortion wouldnt be immoral at all.

Bold by me.

NO. That is you re-defining and/or incorrectly using the words. There is no such thing as "bad morality". If it is bad it is not morality, it is immorality.

Your abortion example is totally different than the "might makes right" example we were discussing. The man with the hammer has no morality and is not acting moral. Abortion may or may not be moral as you said based on a person's perspective and individual's moral code, "might makes right" is always immoral and unethical and NOT part of any moral code.


If an action is moral under some moral codes, yes, actual moral codes - not just a person exercising power because he can, and immoral under other moral codes, then the perspective of the viewer comes into consideration. Example, abortion.


If an action is always wrong or "bad", under all moral codes, then it can't ever be moral. Example, the misnamed "might makes right". Might makes might, it doesn't make it right. The name is an attempt to add morality to a immoral behavior. There is no "set of principles of right conduct" (see 'ethic' below) that condone violence based on strength alone.



I didn't create this, it is standard English language usage.

From dictionary.com

mor·al

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.


im·mor·al

Contrary to established moral principles.


eth·ic

1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).


unethical

1. not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices" [ant: ethical] 2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds"


EDIT - If you persist in arguing, then tell us exactly what moral (see definition of 'moral' above) code or set of ethics (see definition of 'ethic' above) condones "might makes right"? Yes, that's Sahkuhnder, your friendly neighborhood fact checker.

 

[MobBoss]

Then why is it then people would state that I am imposing my morals on other people when I say my viewpoints.

Because they are wrong. Unless of course you strap someone in a chair and refuse to let them eat unless they see things your way. THAT would be forcing. Here, in OT...you are simply discussing....no more, no less and your opinion has no more force upon someone than a fart in the wind....even less so I would imagine. Now...if you make a good argument...you might "convince" someone of something....thats totally different than forcing tho.

I know that I am entitled to my opinions, but often times my opinions tends to turn people off.

So? You think I let that bother me? Heck No!

For example, when I say that I support a ban on same-gender marriages and would vote for a canidate who is against same-gender marriages, another person would say "you like to push your morals on other people, dont you?" as well as hearing statements of me being intolerant. Even turner pointed out (in a harsh way) of how intolerant I was in the Marriage thread.

That is simply an argument tactic. They do it right back to you dont they? Sure they do. I generally view those that point out intolerance as being pretty darn intolerant of opposing viewpoints themselves.

What is morally repellant to me is running the risk of upsetting someone for pointing out their sins in their lives.

It happens, but that isnt your fault. My pastor had a close friend and that friend wanted to enter into an accountability relationship with our pastor...gave him full authority to speak up and call him on behavior that wasnt Christ like. However, when my pastor actually did so, his friend got so upset about it...that they are no longer friends. Now was that my pastor's fault? Nope. It was just unrepentance in the one fellows heart. Plain and simple.

I dont like to judge other people and I "love thy neighbor". How in the world does telling another person of their sins is not judging and loving thy neighbor when the other person witness to the sinner and offends the sinner. That person would be more turned off towards the gospel, especialy if it's a homosexual.

No one likes being told they are doing wrong. Ever. Its like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. A persons heart dictates how they respond. The bible says a wise man accepts his rebuke, but a fool continues in his sinful ways. Reminding someone of their sin isnt judgement, its a wake up call. Just like Jesus and the woman at the well. Go and sin no more pertains today, just like it did then.

Hard Agressive Evangcialism is not for me because its esentialy offending people by pointing out their sins, epsecialy if its part of their lifestyle that they dont see as sinful.

Its not for everybody, I will agree. But, in some cases, if you really care for a person, its essential. My wife and I have a friend of ours who had an affair on her husband. He is divorcing her. She has asked God for forgiveness, but fully realizes that there are ramifications of what she did. Now, she is still married, but every once in awhile has the desire to go out to "knock boots" with this guy again. We point out to her that if she were sincere in asking for her forgiveness that that behavior is not an option. Its her choice...but we are still going to call it exactly what it is...and that is sin.

 

[MobBoss]

Bold by me.

NO. That is you re-defining and/or incorrectly using the words. There is no such thing as "bad morality". If it is bad it is not morality, it is immorality.

Your abortion example is totally different than the "might makes right" example we were discussing. The man with the hammer has no morality and is not acting moral. Abortion may or may not be moral as you said based on a person's perspective and individual's moral code, "might makes right" is always immoral and unethical and NOT part of any moral code.

Sure it is. It is called survival of the fittest. Dont you remember earlier in the thread when so many people were arguing about "animal morals". Is it immoral for a man to eat a cow? Nope. But there are those that would say yes.

If an action is always wrong or "bad", under all moral codes, then it can't ever be moral. Example, the misnamed "might makes right". Might makes might, it doesn't make it right. The name is an attempt to add morality to a immoral behavior. There is no "set of principles of right conduct (see 'ethic' below)" that condone violence based on strength alone.

When Jack Bauer in the show 24 does what needs to be done, an immoral act if you will, in order to "do the right thing" is what he does moral or immoral? Surely what he does is viewed as moral and right to him (and to the viewers apparently since the show is popular). However, he most certainly engages in what I would call immoral behavior in order to achieve his goal.

im·mor·al

Contrary to established moral principles.

Precisely what do you think "established" means. It means this can vary from society to society.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Sure it is. It is called survival of the fittest. Dont you remember earlier in the thread when so many people were arguing about "animal morals". Is it immoral for a man to eat a cow? Nope. But there are those that would say yes.

Survival of the fittest is not a moral code, nor do animals live by a moral code. Too bad you didn't actually read the definition of moral I posted for you as it clearly requires things like concerned judgement, moral scrutiny and conscience that animals are incapable of. Here it is again:

mor·al

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.


You mentioned abortion and then the eating of meat. These are examples that are part of some moral codes, and not part of others.

"Might makes right" is not part of any moral code. If it is then name the moral code it conforms to. It is wrong under all moral codes, and is thus immoral to all practitioners of morality. Let me say that again, if it is then name the moral (moral, as in goodness, rightness and correctness derived from moral scrutiny, conscience and virtue).

--------

When Jack Bauer in the show 24 does what needs to be done, an immoral act if you will, in order to "do the right thing" is what he does moral or immoral? Surely what he does is viewed as moral and right to him (and to the viewers apparently since the show is popular). However, he most certainly engages in what I would call immoral behavior in order to achieve his goal.

I don't watch much TV and haven't seen 24 yet (I plan to someday), but if you mean as your previous examples that are moral behavior by some codes of morality and immoral under other codes then that example would be like abortion and the eating of meat, based on which actual code of morality you subscribe to.

Again, "might makes right" is totally different as no moral code that attempts to encode correct, proper and 'good' behavior would include such heinous behavior as a part of it.

You may name what the behavior is called like "survival of the fittest", but that doesn't make it moral under any actual moral code of good ethics which is a prerequisite for any moral code.

--------

Precisely what do you think "established" means. It means this can vary from society to society.

For the sake of our conversation let's use ourselves as the example. Your religious bible-based morality was encoded thousands of years ago. My logic-based morality method was defined hundreds of years ago. I won't hold you to just "established" codes, provided they are actual codes of morality, and not just the names of bad behavior that all moral codes shun.

Go ahead and post the name of the moral code that attempts to promote good behavior as a moral code must, yet still condones such unethical behavior as "might makes right"


You may have missed the late addition to my post so here it is again:

If you persist in arguing, then tell us exactly what moral (see definition of 'moral' above) code or set of ethics (see definition of 'ethic' above) condones "might makes right"? Yes, that's Sahkuhnder, your friendly neighborhood fact checker.

 

[MobBoss]

Survival of the fittest is not a moral code, nor do animals live by a moral code. Too bad you didn't actually read the definition of moral I posted for you as it clearly requires things like concerned judgement, moral scrutiny and conscience that animals are incapable of. Here it is again:

You missed my point entirely...earlier in this thread several people indeed were arguing the morality of animals (not me).

"Might makes right" is not part of any moral code.

Sure it is. Maybe not yours or mine, but why limit morals to just what you or I think?

Go ahead and post the name of the moral code that attempts to promote good behavior as a moral code must, yet still condones such unethical behavior as "might makes right"

I wasnt aware that moral codes had "names" or "labels".

Here is a what if. Lets just say that all of civilization has devolved into anarchy. Lets just say, in order to provide for my family and their needs I have to take from others to provide for them. From the standpoint of me and my family am I not being moral? Am I not caring and providing for them as I should? Extend this to tribes...or countries/nations. If one nations survival depends upon the destruction of another, how is that not moral? You see this very thing repeated over and over again in history.

 

[Azash]

Confucius? Hmmm, I do think Moses put forth the idea first.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

My bad.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Sure it is. Maybe not yours or mine, but why limit morals to just what you or I think?

As I've explained and the dictionary has confirmed, a moral code must be based on good intentions and virtuous morality. Unless you want to claim that "might makes right" is virtuous then please stop with the nonsense and read the definition of moral.

"Moral" is limited by definition. Not by me, not by "what you or I think", but by what the word means in English.

--------

I wasnt aware that moral codes had "names" or "labels".

Have you ever taken a college philosophy course studying morals and ethics? It is a very complex topic and would help you to dispel your misconceptions about this subject.

Moral codes do have names. You just demonstrated your ignorance of the subject by not knowing that and your arrogance with your ""

Why did you include the ""? Was it an effort to belittle? To intimidate? Are you laughing at your own lack of knowledge of this topic? I for one am curious as to what the purpose of that addition was or what you hoped to add to this discussion by including it.



We have talked about this issue before too. Remember the 'take the high road' conversation? Be the better man? Lead by example? Show your morality not by claiming to have it but by demonstrating it? What does your mocking other posters demonstrate? Isn't part of the purpose of posting to convince others of the correctness and righteousness of your position? Do you think adding "" helps or hurts your efforts?

Why not be MobBoss the Proud, MobBoss the Just, MobBoss the Fair, not that a-hole MobBoss that just makes fun of and tries to disparage everyone he answers?

I'm not being fair? Ask yourself how many of your answers include: /shrug, , rofl, /boggle, , etc.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

--------

Here is a what if. Lets just say that all of civilization has devolved into anarchy. Lets just say, in order to provide for my family and their needs I have to take from others to provide for them. From the standpoint of me and my family am I not being moral? Am I not caring and providing for them as I should? Extend this to tribes...or countries/nations. If one nations survival depends upon the destruction of another, how is that not moral? You see this very thing repeated over and over again in history.

I'm happy to answer.

Morality is based on your situation and the reasons behind your actions, the motivations if you will. If the reason you use force is solely because you are stronger and can successfully do so without repercussions, then that would be immoral and not be a part of any moral code. If you used force to provide for your family because it was your only other option and they would starve otherwise then that would be moral under many moral codes, mine for sure and I'm guessing yours as well. Extended to tribes/countries/nations is an excellent question and I suspect one that we agree on. I can agree with the morality of one nation striking first, and here's the big if, IF it is required for survival.

An example in RL would be the Israeli airstrike on Iraq's nuclear program in Osirak back in 1981 to prevent Saddam from building a nuclear bomb that he already said he would use on Israel. The police do such actions every day and arrest people for conspiracy to commit murder, even if they have never taken any actual steps toward doing the crime, a 'preventive first-strike' if you will.

This is why "might makes right" and "who has the bigger hammer" is not moral, but using your might or hammer to attempt to survive and feed your family very well could be under specific situations.


Sorry to be harsh but it is frustrating to try to talk to you - who I know from past experience to be an intelligent man - and have you respond back as you do. We, and the other readers of our posts, will gain more from our discussions if we stick to the issues, are civil, if not polite, and involve a certain 'give and take' or humility when the time comes that we are wrong (link, middle of post).

 

[Meleager]

Sorry it's taken me a while to reply to this post in this massive thread. I haven't read all of it, so bear with me. Here is a link to the post, with my original comments: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4152864&postcount=216

If true morals are followed because they're right, that would mean that there is an objective standard for morality. Do you think there's an objective set of morals we can compare the morals we use to?

Actually, I do. But I'm not really interested in arguing that. My point was that logic as a motive is no better then fear.

My bolding. Almost every human parent is definitely inclined to do this. They self-sacrifice for the sake of their children. And to your last question, yes, you do appear to be wrong about this. Look at other social animals, especially primates, they exhibit plenty of behaviour that is self-sacrificing, that is advantageous to the group rather than directly to the individual. Your first statement implies that logical moral behaviour is only that which is a direct benefit to the individual, that behaviour that benefits the group isn't logical. That;s only true if you have you start from a very narrow view, working on the premise of 'I will do what gives me, the individual, the biggest short term gain.' If you have two groups of social animals compedting forthe same resources, the first group working entirely on that premise, the second group exhibiting self-sacrifice, ability to think over a longer timespan (i.e. the concept of 'jam tomorrow'), which group do you think will prosper?

That doesn't explain how these aspects arrived in the first place. My understanding of evolution: You have a mutation, which occurs in one animal in the species. Now, if that mutation is beneficial to the individual then it will survive and pass that mutation to its offspring. Mutations which encourage self sacrifice are not beneficial to the individual. The only way it could pass this mutation on is if it survived anyway, "bypassing" natural selection.

Power. A well-developed guilt complex about sex. Arbitrary taboos to distinguish 'us, god's chosen ones' from 'them, the heathens' which become entrenched. Lots of reasons.

Power - Makes no sense. People are easier to control when you tell them what they want.
A well-developed guilt complex about sex - where did this come from?
rbitrary taboos - why would the people accept such "outrageous" rituals which are unlike anything else in their world?

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Ignoring the conversation and posting my opinion:

No, morality isn't dependent on religion. I am agnostic, and consider myself to be a moral person. I don't do things to intentionally hurt others, etc.

Religion forms its own morality, but morality can exist without religion. Although it is, in some people, an unbound morality so they feel no fear of breaking their 'rules for themselves'.

 

[Veritass]

Example of "bad" morality....For the life of me, I still cant come to grips on how it is moral to seize someones house their family has lived in for generations in order to build a shopping mall.

The reason it is a hot topic right now is that the government has gone far beyond the original meaning and purpose of eminent domain. It was intended to allow the government to sieze private property (with compensation) for a public good, such as a road or a school. This would be moral by most standards.

The first issue is when the government body wants to take the property without giving fair compensation, like offering $1 million when the property could legitimately be sold for $2 million. Of course, they first re-zone the property so it is worth less, then offer the $1 million. This would be immoral.

The second issue is then the government decides that the definition of a public good can be stretched far enough to take private property from one party and give it to another private party, such as taking it from one landowner and giving it to a developer for a shopping mall, because the shopping mall will create more tax revenue. This is immoral and against the original intent, and that is why there is controversy.

 

[Azash]

Example of "bad" morality....For the life of me, I still cant come to grips on how it is moral to seize someones house their family has lived in for generations in order to build a shopping mall.

Does it say in the bible "Thou shalt not purchase thy neighbour's ancestral dwellings" or something?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Does it say in the bible "Thou shalt not purchase thy neighbour's ancestral dwellings" or something?

It might, actually. I am not all read up on my Biblical property codes but I think there were laws intended to keep inheritances within the family or original settlers.

 

[MobBoss]

Why not be MobBoss the Proud, MobBoss the Just, MobBoss the Fair, not that a-hole MobBoss that just makes fun of and tries to disparage everyone he answers?

I'm not being fair? Ask yourself how many of your answers include: /shrug, , rofl, /boggle, , etc.

Sorry Sahk, you are taking this conversation in a personally flaming direction that I will not follow. By being personally insulting, the worst I have said to you is that you dont understand what I am saying and you label me with names.

We are done.

reported.