A World without Religion?

[Aloysium]

. . . If you were aborted before birth you would have been completely deprived of “good feelings’ along with the ability to enjoy your life to the best of YOUR ability.

What can be of more harm than having everything, your very existence in this world taken from you.
When abortion is allowed anything and everything is permitted since we are all just cells and spirit.
It is then a matter of power. Morality belongs to whomever has the biggest gun.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Morality, as far as moral agents are concerned, relates to what is obligatory for all moral agents. If we cannot agree upon that as a beginning, then there is no point talking about morality.

Morality in this sense can only derive from that which is objectively and ontologically “good.” There is no sense in grounding morality on what is “pleasing to the reader” since there is no way that such a definition of “good” can ever provide a grounds for moral obligation.

It seems a bit incoherent to say some act is morally “wrong,” while adding with muffled breath, “only if you think it is wrong.” The entire concept of morality evaporates with that qualification.

Speaking of “moving the goalposts,” such a “move” on your part is tantamount to playing the game with an imagined set where the “reader” is free to move them whenever s/he decides the movement is “pleasing” to them.

What you are doing is playing to “the reader” in the hopes that your token nod to them will conduce them to overlook the fact that you have no compelling argument to make.

The idea that anything is objectively required of all moral agents is one that I reject. Moral statements, in my view, only make sense when the speaker and listener agree on their framework. If both parties agree that their morals are based on the Hadiths, the ten commandments, or some utilitarian principle, or any other of that sort, they can discuss whether something is moral or immoral given their agreed upon framework.

You have made way too much out of my colloquial use of the word “good.” You had asserted that, with a lack of an objective moral base, people could justify any number of atrocities. I pointed out that clearly religious cultures and governments are not immune. I gave some examples that I thought both of us would find objectionable. Since we were (presumed) to agree on things like child sacrifice and putting unbelievers to the sword, I felt comfortable in using good/bad as descriptors.

Point being? Both atheism and religious belief systems can justify things that you, the reader, find objectionable. Thus it’s improper to raise this objection only against atheistic systems.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Abortion, does indeed, deprive other distinct human beings of the ability to enjoy their lives to the best of their abilities.

If you were aborted before birth you would have been completely deprived of “good feelings’ along with the ability to enjoy your life to the best of YOUR ability.

So I doubt much can be gained from turning this into an abortion thread, but- one can distinguish a conscious thinking human being from a member of the human species that has not yet developed a brain.

Moreover, even if we accept the personhood of the fetus, we need not accept his or her right to impose restrictions on what the mother does with her body.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

“Good feelings” and “enjoyment” strongly suggest a hedonistic base to your ethical system.

I think I’ve seen that in some of your earlier posts, not sure about that.

Anyway, “good feelings” might appropriately accompany the doing of morally right acts, but they cannot be the sole criterion. We have to do morally right things because they are the right things to do, not because they give us pleasure or enjoyment. Indeed, sometimes the morally right thing to do gives people a pain in the buttocks.

Unless I’ve completely misread you, I fail to see how abortion helps the fetus to enjoy his life to the best of his ability.

If you decide not to do the thing you think is moral, will you feel bad about it later? I certainly do- I identify that add being comparable to my “conscious” enforcing my morals.

I suppose you could equate that with a sort of hedonism, but I was under the impression that heroism is reserved for more… earthly things.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The idea that anything is objectively required of all moral agents is one that I reject. Moral statements, in my view, only make sense when the speaker and listener agree on their framework. If both parties agree that their morals are based on the Hadiths, the ten commandments, or some utilitarian principle, or any other of that sort, they can discuss whether something is moral or immoral given their agreed upon framework.

You have made way too much out of my colloquial use of the word “good.” You had asserted that, with a lack of an objective moral base, people could justify any number of atrocities. I pointed out that clearly religious cultures and governments are not immune. I gave some examples that I thought both of us would find objectionable. Since we were (presumed) to agree on things like child sacrifice and putting unbelievers to the sword, I felt comfortable in using good/bad as descriptors.

Point being? Both atheism and religious belief systems can justify things that you, the reader, find objectionable. Thus it’s improper to raise this objection only against atheistic systems.

Again, you have missed the point. Both atheism and religious belief systems require a substantive ground for any justification of moral beliefs. What you are doing is giving atheistic belief systems a “pass” in this respect. You require objective justification from religious belief systems in order to be binding on you, but when it comes to atheistic morality, you punt to “subjective” feelings as being all that is required simply because that “pleases” you.

In other words, religious moral beliefs require, from you, some compelling objective ground but atheistic belief systems do not, primarily because you are content with no morality or amorality to begin with. Or, at least, what you are doing is calling your subjective “feelings” moral when, in fact, they amount to an abdication of moral beliefs since you don’t allow that morality is at all obligatory.

What you are doing is redefining morality to merely be optional, yet, at the same time insist that actions such as rape, murder, child abuse, etc., are determinably immoral without providing any warrant for making them so. It is a case of having your cake and eating it, too.

Why is it morally wrong for a rapist to rape if you define morality simply on the basis of what is “pleasing” to the agent? That, my friend, IS a case of moving the goalposts since you want to define morality by what is “pleasing” to you but you have no qualms about restricting the rights of others to pleasure merely because their behaviours are displeasing to you.

Either pleasure is the defining principle for morality, even for the rapist, or it is not. If rape displeases you, but pleases the rapist, then there must be a different standard that can be applied to both to determine which behaviour is moral and, therefore, obligatory. Otherwise, we haven’t defined morality, but merely a set of preferences applied arbitrarily.

Morality, to be morality, must be binding on all moral agents without qualification, otherwise we have NO morality to speak of.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you decide not to do the thing you think is moral, will you feel bad about it later? I certainly do-

This simply begs the question. If you do something you think is immoral and you feel GOOD about it later, does that, ipso facto, change the thing you’ve done into something MORAL?

Why not?

If simply feeling bad is what makes something immoral, then someone feeling good about an action will make it “good” and MORAL for them. If the grounds for morality are simply subjective feelings, there are no non-arbitrary means by which to decide which of two or more competing feelings are the determinably “moral” ones.

If “feelings” are all we have to go by, then rape is wrong for you if it makes you feel bad, but NOT wrong for someone if rape makes them feel good. You see no problem here?

Again, what objective grounds exist for saying rape is morally wrong, period? Subjective feelings just don’t cut it.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

In other words, religious moral beliefs require, from you, some compelling objective ground but atheistic belief systems do not, primarily because you are content with no morality or amorality to begin with. Or, at least, what you are doing is calling your subjective “feelings” moral when, in fact, they amount to an abdication of moral beliefs since you don’t allow that morality is at all obligatory.

… what? I never demanded religion offer any objective moral grounding. But many (all?) religions claim to have a set of objective moral rules, which they will produce of their own volition. I demand justification for those rules when they are stated.

What you are doing is redefining morality to merely be optional, yet, at the same time insist that actions such as rape, murder, child abuse, etc., are determinably immoral without providing any warrant for making them so. It is a case of having your cake and eating it, too.

I don’t think anything is objectively wrong in a moral sense. I’m not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I thought otherwise.

Why is it morally wrong for a rapist to rape if you define morality simply on the basis of what is “pleasing” to the agent? That, my friend, IS a case of moving the goalposts since you want to define morality by what is “pleasing” to you but you have no qualms about restricting the rights of others to pleasure merely because their behaviours are displeasing to you.

It’s not moving the goalposts at all- you asked how I defined my morality. I did not claim that “whatever any agent wants to do is moral for that agent.” I have my own moral sense which, at times, insists on impositions on others. My moral sense demands that I not rape and that I intercede to prevent such things from happening. To a lesser extent I’m opposed to intoxicating myself- but I don’t feel compelled to keep others from doing so.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

This simply begs the question. If you do something you think is immoral and you feel GOOD about it later, does that, ipso facto, change the thing you’ve done into something MORAL?

For the purposes of my subjective moral perspective, yes. (To be clear, an activity can still net good feeling and be considered immoral from my perspective- if I stole $1000 to buy something I really wanted, the results of the theft could very well make me quite happy, but I’d still feel bad about the act of stealing).

If “feelings” are all we have to go by, then rape is wrong for you if it makes you feel bad, but NOT wrong for someone if rape makes them feel good. You see no problem here?

I think it’s imprecise to talk about what “is” and “is not” wrong when we’re looking at things from a subjective framework. From my perspective, rape is wrong no matter who does it. From the rapists, one suspects a different view.

Again, what objective grounds exist for saying rape is morally wrong, period?

None.

 

[RGCheek]

Atheism has had its share of missions to forcibly and brutally convert others to non-belief in God or gods. Communism (aka political atheism) has ascended and waned in numerous countries and left a wake of destruction and death in its path. The fact that people would rather die than convert to atheism is telling in itself since atheism didn’t successfully convert so it had to exterminate by genocide and maintain power by intimidation and brutal force.

As to you being “very excited” to see a rise in the numbers of irreligious, I would be very hesitant about voicing jubilation. Recall that “atheism” is not a belief system per se but rather a denial. As such it is completely open-ended in terms of what atheists are capable of. There are no moral tenets in atheism.

It appears to me that you have not thought this through very well. It is possible to eschew the beliefs of others and portray that rebellion as heroic only to certain limits. When it comes to actually hammering out a consistent positive belief system, in particular where ethics are involved, we’ll see how excited by irreligion you will be then.

Atheism has a certain credibility because it lives on the fumes of setting fire to the hypocrisy and failures of religious believers but only gives the appearance from the smokescreens of actually making a compelling case against religion. What atheism doesn’t do is come anywhere near offering a cogent alternative belief system with regards to accounting for the deepest and most profound needs people everywhere have for meaning, significance and worth in their lives. Atheism offers nothing in those respects.

You took the words right off of my keyboard, lol.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Point being? Both atheism and religious belief systems can justify things that you, the reader, find objectionable. Thus it’s improper to raise this objection only against atheistic systems.

Non sequitur.

The objection against the atheist system is that it offers no moral grid by which we detect good and evil.

Religion obviously does.

Whether religious people follow the grid is an entirely different matter than having no grid to follow.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I never demanded religion offer any objective moral grounding. But many (all?) religions claim to have a set of objective moral rules, which they will produce of their own volition. I demand justification for those rules when they are stated.

The justifications for those rules are from God. Where else do you suppose we would say they are from?

Whereas when we ask you the same question, you come up with hedonism as your justification? So, in other words, your justification comes from within you, not from God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think it’s imprecise to talk about what “is” and “is not” wrong when we’re looking at things from a subjective framework. From my perspective, rape is wrong no matter who does it. From the rapists, one suspects a different view.

Then why have laws at all? If the lawmakers are all baffled by whether rape is purely subjective as to being right or wrong, it’s unlikely there would be a law against rape because the lawmakers would be following their own subjective paralysis.

 

[CommonWeal]

Ahh, the John Lennon argument. Well, it depends on what we mean by "a world without religion."

From a philosophical viewpoint, a world (i.e., creation) without religion is a contradiction of terms and thus illogical, since the creation requires a creator, which is God, who we creatures have a duty in justice to know, worship and adore. This aspect of justice we call “religion,” specifically the virtue of natural religion. Thus we say that man is religious by his very nature.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Then why have laws at all? If the lawmakers are all baffled by whether rape is purely subjective as to being right or wrong, it’s unlikely there would be a law against rape because the lawmakers would be following their own subjective paralysis.

Because when people make a society they get to decide how it should operate. Most societies seem to think that bodily autonomy is relatively important, so they make laws with that in mind.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

The justifications for those rules are from God. Where else do you suppose we would say they are from?

Whereas when we ask you the same question, you come up with hedonism as your justification? So, in other words, your justification comes from within you, not from God.

No, when you ask me to justify my objective moral rules I say “what objective moral rules?”

And when I say “where is this god of yours”, we end up in a “are there any gods at all” debate.

 

[CommonWeal]

Because when people make a society they get to decide how it should operate. Most societies seem to think that bodily autonomy is relatively important, so they make laws with that in mind.

Go to India and talk about societies that value “bodily autonomy.” In fact, I would argue that “most societies” don’t value bodily autonomy; only one society, or civilization rather, does: Christian society. You see, your entire worldview is colored by centuries of Christian civilization and its moral influence, and you don’t even know it.

Further, you speak as though society is something we create, like a man might invent a machine, forgetting that men did not create the physical laws of nature on which the machine relies, nor has man created the moral order on which societies rely for the common good.

For example, the family is the smallest real society. Agreed? Does that mean the father can simply “decide how it should operate” and abuse his wife and children? Does might make right? Of course not, because there is a higher law at work which supplies the moral standards under which the family can thrive and live in peace.

Don’t you see that??? I sorrow for you.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Go to India and talk about societies that value “bodily autonomy.” In fact, I would argue that “most societies” don’t value bodily autonomy; only one society, or civilization rather, does: Christian society. You see, your entire worldview is colored by centuries of Christian civilization and its moral influence, and you don’t even know it.

Rape is quite illegal in India. Rape occurs far too often, but you could say that of US college campuses as well.

The rape of a woman who isn’t the wife of the rapist has been illegal all over the place. The concept of marital rape didn’t arise in the “Christian society” until quite recently.

Further, you speak as though society is something we create, like a man might invent a machine, forgetting that men did not create the physical laws of nature on which the machine relies, nor has man created the moral order on which societies rely for the common good.

Different societies have arrived at radically different moral orders to suit their beliefs/needs- it’s not like they’re all drawing from the same template. They have some things in common (don’t wander about killing people, don’t light everybody’s stuff on fire) because any society without elements like that would have gone up in flames pretty quickly.

For example, the family is the smallest real society. Agreed? Does that mean the father can simply “decide how it should operate” and abuse his wife and children? Does might make right? Of course not, because there is a higher law at work which supplies the moral standards under which the family can thrive and live in peace.

Don’t you see that??? I sorrow for you.

Sure he can- unless the higher power is going to hurl a lightning bolt at him, why should he care what it thinks (if it can even be assumed to exist.) Do I, from my perspective, think it’s right? Of course not, and I’d act to stop it if this were a real world example.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . when you ask me to justify my objective moral rules I say “what objective moral rules?” . . .

Thank you for providing so clearly, evidence as to why the world needs religion.

Truth, goodness and beauty, like life itself are realities which neither individuals nor societies can simply create. They are given and found in the Reality of God Himself.

In order to arrive at what is good, a relationship between God and humanity is required - religion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure he can- unless the higher power is going to hurl a lightning bolt at him, why should he care what it thinks (if it can even be assumed to exist.) Do I, from my perspective, think it’s right? Of course not, and I’d act to stop it if this were a real world example.

This is all fine and good. However, do you think the man has a moral responsibility NOT to treat his family that way such that those around him have a duty to intervene to stop him from doing so? Not merely IF those others want or choose to but that they have an obligation to do so?

If you agree with that, on what grounds would it be obligatory?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

This is all fine and good. However, do you think the man has a moral responsibility

From my person POV, yes insofar as I strongly disapprove of him doing otherwise.

From the “point of view” of the universe itself (that is, in objective terms), no- I don’t think any such responsibilities exist outside the mind of the viewer.