Morality Without Religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gilbert_Keith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Morality without religion is surely possible. Another lad pointed out the famous Euthyphro problem. There can be ethic theories seperate from religion. Many famous Catholics and non-Catholic Christians accepted the refutation of the Divine Command Theory including Kant. So be careful…
 
nucatholic

Morality without religion is surely possible.

It certainly is. Even the devil has a morality:

“Right is wrong and wrong is right!”
 
NUCATHOLIC

Divine Command Theory ?

Would you like to elaborate on that for people who are not familiar with it?
 
40.png
nucatholic:
Morality without religion is surely possible.
Click to expand...
It is not only possible. It is what we have today. Greetings!!!
 
barsapp

interesting video, but… why so many soldiers???

Good question.

Perhaps because soldiers illustrate the principle of patriotism and religion together as no one else can … soldiers are the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way, who follow Christ in practicing the greatest love one can know … to lay down one’s life for another.

Onward Christian soldiers?

Or think of Saint Paul’s Christian warrior with his sword of the spirit and helmet of salvation?
 
Gilbert Keith:
Perhaps because soldiers illustrate the principle of patriotism and religion together as no one else can … soldiers are the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way, who follow Christ in practicing the greatest love one can know … to lay down one’s life for another. Onward Christian soldiers?
Click to expand...
I do not think this is a very favourable and\or convenient connection… patriotism and religion could be a dangerous couple… regarding some of the statements of the video, some of them remind me of Charles Maurras, who supported the Catholic Church only because of reasons of social order, not because of the truth itself. He was an agnostic, returning to Catholicism shortly before his death.

Onward Christian soldiers? Only the Crusaders.
 
barsapp

O.K. I guess I see your point.

regarding some of the statements of the video, some of them remind me of Charles Maurras

Which ones in particular?

God bless.
 
Barsapp, the Divine Command Theory states that things are good because God commands them to be good and then of course things are evil because God declares them to be evil. The DCT states that God is the standard. However, if we say that God is the standard then his goodness would be arbitrary. No matter what God commands it has to be good. People can come back and say that he wouldn’t ever command anything evil…but then once again it wouldn’t be evil anymore because what God commands has to be good. Therefore, if the DCT theory is correct we could not call God a good God. However, if we refute the DCT we must accept that there is a standard seperate from God and that doesn’t fit with our definition of a classically defined Judeo-Christian God. I’m not saying at all that I don’t believe in God. I consider myself a devout Catholic and am even strongly considering the priesthood, but this is a serious problem theologically. Reason must give us an answer for it and one of the main tenants of the Church is that reason is our friend not the enemy. That is a primary reason I joined the Catholic Church. Anyway, good luck thinking about that one…it boggles the mind.
 
Gilbert Keith:

Did you know that GKC addressed this question in the last chapter of Orthodoxy? I thought it interesting that you posted this question.

What have you read lately? Finished Man who 'Was Thursday several weeks back. Very very good.

in XT
 
AQUINAS XVI

Christopher Kauffman’s FAITH AND FRATERNALISM: THE HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Maynard Geiger’s LIFE AND TIMES OF JUNIPERO SERRA
John Rossetti’s WHEN THE LION ROARS
Hilaire Belloc’s JOAN OF ARC
Anonymous, THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING

Having read most of Chesterton, I’d vote these his two best works:

THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY (FICTION)
THE EVERLASTING MAN (HISTORY)

Recently discovered that he gave a talk in 1931at Holy Cross college at Worcester, Massachusetts about a block from the house where I was born. Wish I had been a young man to hear it!
I did go to the college archives and found there many photos of his visit, including one of him planting a tree on the college grounds. I was able to track down the tree by observing the angle of the building and its windows in the background.
 
Gilbert Keith said:
AnAtheist

Sorry, but morality with religion is relative too. Religions change over time and their morals with them.

***Your argument fails because you seem to think the Ten Commandments and the two great commandments of Jesus have been changed. ***

They have not. They are as absolute as they ever were.
Click to expand...

My argument only fails, if those are THE ONLY morals the Church preaches or God ever laid out. Most of Leviticus is not followed any longer, although that book contains the morals laid out by god. If you say, that applied to Jews only and only back then, and changed with the arrival of Jesus, well, exactly THAT is RELATIVISM. Relative == not applying anytime and anywhere and for everybody.
Do you believe Franklin and Washington were wrong? Why?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about. Wrong with what?
 
AnAtheist

THAT is RELATIVISM. Relative == not applying anytime and anywhere and for everybody.

No idea what you are talking about. The Ten Commandments and the commandments of Jesus have always applied always and everywhere. Show me when they changed. You can’t.

I said:
Do you believe Franklin and Washington were wrong? Why?

You replied:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Wrong with what?

Read posts #1 and 15. Then watch the video cited nine posts back. Do you disagree with all these people about the relationship between morality and religion?

And please stop starting your posts with “sorry.” You don’t have to be sorry for anything you write in this thread unless you have embarassed yourself.
 
Gilbert Keith:
AnAtheist

THAT is RELATIVISM. Relative == not applying anytime and anywhere and for everybody.

No idea what you are talking about. The Ten Commandments and the commandments of Jesus have always applied always and everywhere. Show me when they changed. You can’t.
Click to expand...
That is not the point, because they are (I repeat myself now) NOT THE ONLY MORALS IN CHRISTIANITY.

Do you stone your disobedient child?
Does every woman cover her head in church?
Do you still burn witches?

No? All those moral codes have changed, haven’t they?
Do you disagree with all these people about the relationship between morality and religion?
Click to expand...
Not with all, but with the indispensable part.

And, btw, why should I care about the opinion of some long dead colonial revolutionaries? What fallacy do you follow here argumentum ad verecundiam or ad antiquitatem?
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
That is not the point, because they are (I repeat myself now) NOT THE ONLY MORALS IN CHRISTIANITY.

Do you stone your disobedient child?
Does every woman cover her head in church?
Do you still burn witches?

No? All those moral codes have changed, haven’t they?
Click to expand...
they’ve only changed if you understand them simplistically - in a manner that, were it scriptural exegesis, would be considered fundamentalist and literalist.

christian moral theology does not proscribe actions understood simply as bits of observable behaviour - it poscribes certain ways of choosing or intending. so, while killing is not always wrong, intending to end the life of another is.

and in these ways, (christian) morality is immutable.
 
john doran:
they’ve only changed if you understand them simplistically - in a manner that, were it scriptural exegesis, would be considered fundamentalist and literalist.

christian moral theology does not proscribe actions understood simply as bits of observable behaviour - it poscribes certain ways of choosing or intending. so, while killing is not always wrong, intending to end the life of another is.

and in these ways, (christian) morality is immutable.
Click to expand...
Hm, that means, christian morality is intrinsically relative. Fine with me.
 
Gilbert Keith:
I’ve always been puzzled by those who say that morals can be cultivated independently of religion. Has that ever happened? Has there ever been a totally atheistic society in the history of the world?
Click to expand...
Soviet Russia and Post-Revolution/Pre-Napoleonic France immediately come to mind, neither strike me as shining examples of civilized societies. In fact they are perhaps the two bloodiest and most oppressive societies in the history of man.

AnAtheist,

I’m quite sure that you understand why Catholic morality is certainly not relativistic. Situation/principle based morality does not necessarily mean relativism. Would you call the Categorical Imperative relativistic? How about Utilitarianism? Of course not, and it is just as ludicrous to call Catholic Morality relativistic. I agree with you that morality can exist separate of religion, and in fact any logical atheist probably isn’t a relativist, but the fact remains that in many instances atheism tends towards relativism. I think that is a reasonable observation.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Hm, that means, christian morality is intrinsically relative. Fine with me.
Click to expand...
no. it means that the behavioural apsects of morality are relative. which means, in other words, that two instances of the same action can have two different moral characters.

for example, killing: two acts of killing can be observationally identical but morally distinct, as is the case where one person kills another intentionally (murder), and another person kills entirely by accident or in order to save the life of another (manslaughter or self-defence). the first is wrong always and everywhere, and the second isn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top