Is morality dependent on religion?

[warpus]

This discussion has gotten rather interesting.

Mobboss (or anyone in Mobboss' camp), I'm wondering if you believe that morality can only come from Christianity and Judaism, or other religions as well?

ie. Can Hindus be moral?

 

[Paradigne]

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?

Well put

BUT, were those heathen religeons started as an excuse for morality, or were we morally predisposed to believe in something greater than ourselves??

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well put

BUT, were those heathen religeons started as an excuse for morality, or were we morally predisposed to believe in something greater than ourselves??

Sorry, I can't really even venture an educated guess as to our core need for morality or any predisposition to seek to create one.

Nature is a huge and terrifying process, even today. I can understand why a primitive man would want answers to questions about why one year there was plenty of game and plants to eat and the next year there wasn't. It wouldn't be too big a leap to think that if we act 'good' or 'proper' that nature would reward us and if we act 'evil' and 'wrong' that we could be punished like children.

If you live in a world where you have little control over your surroundings then it would be tempting to create reasons for why things are the way they are and how your behavior may be able to influence your environment. After all, what else did they have? Behavior was the one variable they did have a degree of control over. Why not try to use your behavior in an effort to seek favorable results? Sometimes your request may even come to pass. And if it worked once, what's the harm in trying it again?

We think we are so advanced? We still have otherwise rational human beings talking to the sky and asking for favors.

 

[Azash]

MobBoss, you seemed to dislike the idea of the 20ppl/10 get food situation solved by logic. As a christian, how would you solve it? Let the sinners die? EVerybody dies?

EDIT:

Mobboss (or anyone in Mobboss' camp), I'm wondering if you believe that morality can only come from Christianity and Judaism, or other religions as well?

ie. Can Hindus be moral?

 

[MobBoss]

No problem.

Examples from another post:



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

The bible does not need to be specific as regards to those items any more than it wasnt specific about the price of tea in China while Christ was alive. It covers how people should act towards one another in those situations just as well today as it did 2k years ago.

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.

I would say you limit religion too much. I think it deals with such issues easily.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, you seemed to dislike the idea of the 20ppl/10 get food situation solved by logic. As a christian, how would you solve it? Let the sinners die? EVerybody dies?

Quite simply take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

The bible does not need to be specific as regards to those items any more than it wasnt specific about the price of tea in China while Christ was alive. It covers how people should act towards one another in those situations just as well today as it did 2k years ago.

I would say you limit religion too much. I think it deals with such issues easily.

Bold by me.

I'll take you at your word and give you a chance to prove your case. How about sharing with us then how the bible easily deals with these specific issues from my previously posted questions:

1. What's the bible's position on intellectual property rights of digital photos posted on the internet?

2. How about real estate claims for particular pieces of property on the moon?

3. What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?

I can use my logic-based morality to solve newly emerging questions like these. I must stand by my previous statement "One of my main problems with religion is its inability to adapt to our changing times."

I can even use logic to analyze the history of the price of tea in China.

--------

Quite simply take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so.

That's an easy first step, and a logic-based morality would also ask for volunteers as well. What happens if you ask for volunteers and 10 people don't come forward? To quote Azash "As a christian, how would you solve it? Let the sinners die? Everybody dies?"

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The choice is simple: have the 10 fattest ones die. The skinny ones eat less food, and they can consume the corpses of those who had to sacrifice themselves. Easy, ain't it?

Seriously, the Bible can't give specific answers to the questions you ask. What the Bible (and other scriptures, and other sources) can do is help us to understand how to treat others unselfishly, which is a principle we can apply in business as much as in anything.

 

[Masquerouge]

The choice is simple: have the 10 fattest ones die. The skinny ones eat less food, and they can consume the corpses of those who had to sacrifice themselves. Easy, ain't it?

Seriously, the Bible can't give specific answers to the questions you ask. What the Bible (and other scriptures, and other sources) can do is help us to understand how to treat others unselfishly, which is a principle we can apply in business as much as in anything.

I think that what is at stake here is not specifically what the Bible has to say about that survival situation, but the fact that perfectly sensible answers can be reached through logic.
The big question is, are these sensible answers moral? And if not, what would be a moral answer to the problem? And for people claiming that morals can not be separated from religion, what would a religiously moral answer be like?

I'm not convinced by MobBoss' answer. If what he is basically saying is that people should volunteer out of love for their fellows, what if only 5 people volunteer? What if 20 people volunteer?

I find it also very interesting that maybe this problem (how to select 10 people to kill so the other 10 can survive) might simply NOT have a moral answer. So it might happen that people wanting to preserve morality at all cost could die while people accepting compromises with their morality could live.

 

[MobBoss]

Bold by me.

I'll take you at your word and give you a chance to prove your case. How about sharing with us then how the bible easily deals with these specific issues from my previously posted questions:

1. What's the bible's position on intellectual property rights of digital photos posted on the internet?

rofl. I fail to see the point of your question. I would say using biblical principles dont misrepresent yourself or bear false witness against another and deal fairly with others as you would have them deal with you. Perhaps you should explain further why intellectual property rights are such a "moral" problem that the bible has no answer to.

2. How about real estate claims for particular pieces of property on the moon?

How is this any different than real estate disputes here on Earth?

3. What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?

Once more, we divide it as we see fit as long as we honor God in doing it. There is no difference in dividing bandwith for use than dividing sheep for consumption. Different items, same principles.

Bottom line, all three things you list here have no real need to be specifically listed in the bible. But you can still use biblical principles in how you personally deal with it. Its up to us as a people to have rules in place (i.e. Laws) concering these specific issues. Biblically, we should obey those laws (be good servants) as long as they dont violate our religious commandments and conduct our personal actions as Christ would. I fail to see why that is so hard for you to comprehend.

 

[MobBoss]

I think that what is at stake here is not specifically what the Bible has to say about that survival situation, but the fact that perfectly sensible answers can be reached through logic.
The big question is, are these sensible answers moral? And if not, what would be a moral answer to the problem? And for people claiming that morals can not be separated from religion, what would a religiously moral answer be like?

I'm not convinced by MobBoss' answer. If what he is basically saying is that people should volunteer out of love for their fellows, what if only 5 people volunteer? What if 20 people volunteer?

I find it also very interesting that maybe this problem (how to select 10 people to kill so the other 10 can survive) might simply NOT have a moral answer. So it might happen that people wanting to preserve morality at all cost could die while people accepting compromises with their morality could live.

The only real moral answer to it at all is the sacrifice of those that would CHOOSE to die as opposed to any "logical" choice selected who SHOULD die. Perhaps you are not convinced by my answer because you dont understand Christ's sacrifice for all of us.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

IThe big question is, are these sensible answers moral? And if not, what would be a moral answer to the problem? And for people claiming that morals can not be separated from religion, what would a religiously moral answer be like?

I find it also very interesting that maybe this problem (how to select 10 people to kill so the other 10 can survive) might simply NOT have a moral answer. So it might happen that people wanting to preserve morality at all cost could die while people accepting compromises with their morality could live.

I think you may be on to something. Except that for me, morality is somewhat utilitarian - what is moral is what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But since I also believe in the continuation of the individual after death, and eternal progress, that makes "the greatest good" not obvious.

I do think everything has a morality-based answer. But sometimes it is "figure it out on your own." In this hypothetical situation I would pray fervently to get an answer. If God provides a workable answer, then great. But it is also likely that He will not, meaning He wants us to work it out ourselves. In that situation I can't say what is moral for everyone, just what is moral for me. And what is moral for me is to sacrifice myself for others, as I have no dependents and feel I am prepared for death.

 

[betazed]

@Mobboss: Could you answer the question addressed to you by Warpus (reproduced below)? Really interested to know your pov on this.

This discussion has gotten rather interesting.

Mobboss (or anyone in Mobboss' camp), I'm wondering if you believe that morality can only come from Christianity and Judaism, or other religions as well?

ie. Can Hindus be moral?

 

[MobBoss]

@Mobboss: Could you answer the question addressed to you by Warpus (reproduced below)? Really interested to know your pov on this.

I think anyone can be moral, given that my morality can certainly be different than yours. Thus I am sure a hindu can be moral, but we most likely wouldnt agree on what all is moral and what isnt.

My overall point was that such morality, whether held by christians, hindus or even atheists, has its roots in religion, one way or another.

 

[Masquerouge]

The only real moral answer to it at all is the sacrifice of those that would CHOOSE to die as opposed to any "logical" choice selected who SHOULD die. Perhaps you are not convinced by my answer because you dont understand Christ's sacrifice for all of us.

Okay. So if the 20 people choose to die, then what?

 

[Masquerouge]

I think you may be on to something. Except that for me, morality is somewhat utilitarian - what is moral is what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. But since I also believe in the continuation of the individual after death, and eternal progress, that makes "the greatest good" not obvious.

I 100% agree on your definition of utilitarian morality. I also do not see anything religious in that definition. And since I do not believe in life after death and eternal progress, to me the greatest good is more obvious in that case at least: 10 people should die.

I do think everything has a morality-based answer. But sometimes it is "figure it out on your own." In this hypothetical situation I would pray fervently to get an answer. If God provides a workable answer, then great. But it is also likely that He will not, meaning He wants us to work it out ourselves. In that situation I can't say what is moral for everyone, just what is moral for me. And what is moral for me is to sacrifice myself for others, as I have no dependents and feel I am prepared for death.

Note that morality can provide you with the answer (10 people should die) but not the way or the means to enforce it... So I refine my statement above: 10 people should die WILLINGLY. Because obviously having the 10 strongest people kill the weakest ones is what is likely to happen, but it certainly is not moral, since free will was not respected.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I 100% agree on your definition of utilitarian morality. I also do not see anything religious in that definition. And since I do not believe in life after death and eternal progress, to me the greatest good is more obvious

And that difference of belief is exactly why we will have differing views on morality. After all, what is good for a human who is going to live 70 years and then die as a human is different from what is good for a human who will live forever and can become like God.

In my view, God is not the ultimate source of morality (He is also a utilitarian) but since He has a better perspective on the entire course of human life and what is the greatest good, He will sometimes tell us what is moral when it isn't obvious to us. And although some situations have different responses, we often can't tell what would be the greatest good, which is why He gave us moral principles. But someone who doesn't believe in God can still understand a lot of what the greatest good is.

 

[MobBoss]

Okay. So if the 20 people choose to die, then what?

Why would all 20 choose to die? The point is that some choose to die so that others may live. Far more moral that the biggest dude of the bunch deciding who he doesnt like....

 

[warpus]

I think anyone can be moral, given that my morality can certainly be different than yours. Thus I am sure a hindu can be moral, but we most likely wouldnt agree on what all is moral and what isnt.

My overall point was that such morality, whether held by christians, hindus or even atheists, has its roots in religion, one way or another.

Do you think that morals can come from Scientology?

If I started my own religion, could morality arise from that, or does the religion have to be "established" ?

 

[MobBoss]

Do you think that morals can come from Scientology?

If I started my own religion, could morality arise from that, or does the religion have to be "established" ?

Once more, I am sure Scientologists have their own set of morals. However, I assure you that Tom Cruise's set of morals are most likely to be much different than mine.