Morality Without Religion?

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

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.

What about killing intentionaly because the law says so. Which in Judaism and certain forms of Christianity is synonymous with God said so?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

I said:
*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.
*

You said:
*That is not the point, because they are (I repeat myself now) NOT THE ONLY MORALS IN CHRISTIANITY.
*
But it IS the point. Until you can prove that these morals … The Ten Commandments of Moses and the two Commandments of Jesus have changed … and they are the basic moral underpinnings of Christianity … you cannot prove that Christianity has gone foul with relativism.

For the last time, please answer the question: how have these commandments changed?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

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?
I didn’t ask whether you cared about their opinion. I asked whether you agreed or disagreed with their opinion … assuming you have done the courtesy of even looking at their opinion.

If you are saying you will not look at their opinion because you don’t care about their opinion …

Oh well … I’ve had many students like that in most of my classes … student who never do their homework. I know you’re not one of those.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

What about killing intentionaly because the law says so. Which in Judaism and certain forms of Christianity is synonymous with God said so?

i’m not familiar with the moral theology of judaism or any forms of christianity where “god said so” is synonymous with “kill intentionally”.

so i don’t know about them.

 

[barsapp]

*regarding some of the statements of the video, some of them remind me of Charles Maurras. *Which ones in particular?

“of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports” G. Washington.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

barsapp

“of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports” G. Washington.

Does this mean you think Washington is proposing a dangerous doctrine? Please elaborate on the connection between Washington and Maurras.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

But it IS the point. Until you can prove that these morals … The Ten Commandments of Moses and the two Commandments of Jesus have changed … and they are the basic moral underpinnings of Christianity … you cannot prove that Christianity has gone foul with relativism.

Where do they speak of for example homosexuality or condoms. Christians are morally very active on those subjects. I fail to see how these morals can be derived by 10+2 cc ONLY.

For the last time, please answer the question: how have these commandments changed?

In Mt 5 Jesus changes some of the commandments, but then you won’t call that changing but fulfilling or clarifying or whatever, The point is, they now are interpreted differently and thus the morality has changed.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

i’m not familiar with the moral theology of judaism or any forms of christianity where “god said so” is synonymous with “kill intentionally”.

so i don’t know about them.

Fair enough. But perhaps you can answer this moral question:
Is it right or wrong to kill your own child for disobedience?

If you have an option #3, pls elaborate.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

The point is, they now are interpreted differently and thus the morality has changed.

---

How are they interpreted differently?

They are still in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I’m not aware of any controversy even withing the Church over whether the Ten Commandments of Moses and the Two Commandments of Jesus are interpreted any differently than they were thousands of years ago.

These are the basis of all Judeo-Christian morality and always have been and always will be. That means they are not relative to century or culture. You can find powerful traditions that have changed due to circumstances … but the Catholic Church has never wavered from the ancient teaching on homosexuality, for example, even if other churches have. Is that what you mean by moral relativism? I would grant the relativism to that extent, but not within the tradition of the Catholic Church which has remained faithful to the Old and New Testament moral compass. The Commandments of Jesus do not change the Commandments of Moses. They sum up the ancient law in two Commandments, and when we think deeply enough about it, the law of love really is connected with all of the Ten Commandments in various ways.

 

[barsapp]

*“of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports” G. Washington. *Does this mean you think Washington is proposing a dangerous doctrine? Please elaborate on the connection between Washington and Maurras.

This is not a particularly “dangerous” doctrine. It only shows that it is possible to take advantage of (or manipulate or control) religion to achieve goals of social order.
G. Washington is saying that religion and morality are useful to achieve political prosperity. He is not very interested in knowing about the true or falseness of any particular religion.
Could be a link between this approach and Maurras one. In this case we have an agnostic defending the social role and usefulness of the Catholic Church. (It is really infrequent to see an agnostic in this position).
Also Stalin took advantage of religion during the IIWW. There are lots of examples.
The dangerous point is to compare Catholicicm with other religions. To put Catholicism at the same level with other religions. Catholicism being the complete truth revealed on earth has a major revolutionary factor.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

In Mt 5 Jesus changes some of the commandments, but then you won’t call that changing but fulfilling or clarifying or whatever …
Can you be more specific here? Which of the Ten Commandments was changed or reinterpreted? How?

Please cite the specific sentences or verse numbers.

Thanks.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Fair enough. But perhaps you can answer this moral question:
Is it right or wrong to kill your own child for disobedience?

If you have an option #3, pls elaborate.

it is wrong to intend to kill your child for disobedience. it is also wrong negligently to kill your child for disobedience. but it is not wrong accidentally to kill your child for disobedience (or anyting else).

 

[Everwrestling]

Hi, just so no one thinks I’m trying to pull a fast one. I’m the same person as Everstuggling. I had some problems with my password, so I created a new account. Just wanted to be up front about it.
Now on with the show.

Suppose the whole world came to its senses and abandoned all religion. How then would morality be passed on from one generation to the next so that there would be a moral glue that holds people together with common laws?

Good question. I’ll try to answer it, as best as I can.

I don’t value other people because they are the children of God, but because they are people. They have the same value in my eyes as I do. If we are going to live together we need to decide on the rules, the best ones tend to take root and be passed on from generation to generation. Almost all societies think that murder is wrong, for instance.

When deciding how to act, I generally use a variety of axioms to try and figure out the way to act that will be fair to everyone concerned. (Kant’s categorical imperative, “Make no action that you would not want to become a universal law.” and Utilitarianism, “Do those actions that cause the greatest happiness.” are the two I juggle most often. My justification for asking people to act the same way is usually based in the social contract, “You benefit from the rules, therefore play by the rules.”

I’ve simplified immensely, but that is basically where I get my moral compass. It sometimes fails, but then who doesn’t?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Everwrestling

*When deciding how to act, I generally use a variety of axioms to try and figure out the way to act that will be fair to everyone concerned. (Kant’s categorical imperative, “Make no action that you would not want to become a universal law.” and Utilitarianism, “Do those actions that cause the greatest happiness.” are the two I juggle most often. My justification for asking people to act the same way is usually based in the social contract, “You benefit from the rules, therefore play by the rules.”
*
How are you going to impose your moral compass on the rest of society so that there is a moral glue that hold society together and keeps people from each other’s throats? Why should your moral compass be the compass of everyone else? Now remember, if there is no God, there is no ultimate authority outside of humankind. Who then becomes the ultimate authority?

 

[Everstruggling]

Hi, got my account working again.
Gilbert Keith:

Everwrestling

When deciding how to act, I generally use a variety of axioms to try and figure out the way to act that will be fair to everyone concerned. (Kant’s categorical imperative, “Make no action that you would not want to become a universal law.” and Utilitarianism, “Do those actions that cause the greatest happiness.” are the two I juggle most often. My justification for asking people to act the same way is usually based in the social contract, “You benefit from the rules, therefore play by the rules.”

How are you going to impose your moral compass on the rest of society so that there is a moral glue that hold society together and keeps people from each other’s throats? Why should your moral compass be the compass of everyone else? Now remember, if there is no God, there is no ultimate authority outside of humankind. Who then becomes the ultimate authority?

How am I going to impose my moral compass? I’m not entirely sure I follow you. Where we get our moral code, whether people except a moral code, and whether that code can be enforced are completely separate issues.

Do you think I act morally, because of God? Or because I secretly believe? I’m really kind of confused here.

If you and I were stranded together on a desert island, we would have to come to some terms about how we are going to act so we don’t kill each other. I can guarantee you, we won’t be agreeing on what the bible says. No way am I lugging two sets of dishes around on an island.

If I am hearing you correctly, you are suggesting that we can come to no agreement, unless we presuppose a God. I would counter that we can come to an agreement based mearly on our mutual benefit. I won’t attack you while you sleep. You don’t pee in my food when I’m not looking. Let’s say we have our whole families there. Surely we can teach them, and get them to agree to the whole no-peeing-in-the-food-thing without having to resort to invoking God.

Am I missing your point?

Hey! I become a regular member with this post, yeh!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Everwrestling

*If I am hearing you correctly, you are suggesting that we can come to no agreement, unless we presuppose a God. I would counter that we can come to an agreement based mearly on our mutual benefit. I won’t attack you while you sleep. You don’t pee in my food when I’m not looking. Let’s say we have our whole families there. Surely we can teach them, and get them to agree to the whole no-peeing-in-the-food-thing without having to resort to invoking God. *

Am I missing your point?

Very likely.

You cannot take 2 people on an island and make out of their situation a national or international model for social ethics and laws.

Nor can the norm for social laws be a crisis situation … since we know social laws are likely to change radically during a crisis.

But yes, you are near my point. I don’t think you can find a moral glue without God … the recognition of some supreme law that governs our conduct and makes us fear jeapordizing our immortal souls if we wrongly flaunt that law. This was so among the ancients and it is still so. You must prove how your model can work without God when no such model without God has ever worked very long (as we know from the antic anti-God rantings of Hitler, Stalin, et. al.).

So again, emergency island situations aside, and crises aside, how would you get a normal society to build laws out of an ethical system that has a binding force on all without God(s) being recognized as the Force?

Betcha can’t do it.

 

[Everstruggling]

Gilbert Keith:

So again, emergency island situations aside, and crises aside, how would you get a normal society to build laws out of an ethical system that has a binding force on all without God(s) being recognized as the Force?

Betcha can’t do it.

You’ve got that right. I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas of what makes people tick. But I’ll give it a shot.

I don’t know of anyone who says, “I’m not going to run this red light, because I will go to hell.” I do know tonnes of people who say, “I won’t run this red light because it is dangerous.” Nor do I hear people say, “If I park here, I will anger God.” I hear, “If I park here, I’m going to get a ticket.”

Those are two laws that people follow in major civilizations. I don’t believe they are followed because people acknowledge the supremacy of God or gods. I think it is because of personal safety, or because they don’t want get caught. I think it is further evidence that people will run lights on deserted roads, and take the ticket if it is urgent enough.

Isn’t it at all possible that there could be other such laws that people follow because they simply made sense to follow them?

The reason I see that society works, is that individuals make choices. Most people choose to follow the laws, either out of fear of retribution, good sense, a feeling of fair play, and yes sometimes, because they think it was what God wanted?

(Actually, an interesting point of your point of view is that God doesn’t need to exist at all for it to still work. If most people believed in God, they would still follow the rules simply because they believed in a moral absolute. But I don’t really think that’s why society works. I was just throwing it out there as a point of interest.)

If my main point doesn’t pursuade you, I’ve got nothing else.

Ever

p.s. Just another side note. I, personally, am not out on a crusade to convert people. I wouldn’t consider it a success to eliminate religion from the world.

 

[nucatholic]

Looks like we have another philosophy student . Good old Utilitarianism, and Kantian Duty Ethics…music to my over-stressed ears…and by music I mean a clanging gong while trying to sleep…I’m not burnt out at all…

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

it is wrong to intend to kill your child for disobedience. it is also wrong negligently to kill your child for disobedience. but it is not wrong accidentally to kill your child for disobedience (or anyting else).

That’s what I would say, but see what a divinely inspired bible author says:
Deu 21:18-21:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.

What’s wrong here?

1. The author was not or wrongly inspired by God.
2. God has a strange notion of what is right.
3. The moral assessment of that situation has changed.
4. ?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

That’s what I would say, but see what a divinely inspired bible author says:

What’s wrong here?

1. The author was not or wrongly inspired by God.
2. God has a strange notion of what is right.
3. The moral assessment of that situation has changed.
4. ?

1. the act being espoused is one of self-defense. “rebellion”, “profligacy”, and “drunkenness” were serious, systematic transgressions against the authority necessary to maintain the stability of the communal life of the old testament israelites; killing individuals guilty of such crimes (after trial by the magistrates, it should be noted) would have been seen as saving the community from very real and immediate harm.

keep in mind that we’re not talking about small children here, but, at the very least, young adults.

1. the intention was, in fact, to kill, but given at that point in the moral and theological evolution of man, god suspended the negative spiritual consequences of such illicit behaviour, much as he did with divorce; people just weren’t ready to “get it”, if you will, much as young children aren’t really capable of integrating many social norms into their behavioural patterns, norms often pertaining to social etiquette or propriety; in cases like that, parents can do far more harm than good by strictly enforcing such behaviour in their children by means of unrelenting punishment. so you let stuff slide until they’re old enough to know better.
2. the intention is not to kill, but to dispense justice, or to do what god says, and death is a foreseen but unintended consequence of the stoning.
3. there may well be other ways to look at it, but i lack the intelligence to think of them. plus, i don’t care since the text isn’t even a remotely compelling piece of negative theology to me. at all.

look, i understand your approach to these issues - the internet is littered with sites devoted to the skeptical “debunking” of christianity by means of line-by-line exposition of apparent biblical, philosophical, and theological contradictions within the corpus of various christian texts.

the problem, though, is that these are invariably only superficial inconsistencies, which are easily and straightforwardly resolved by either or both of simple historical, moral, or philosophical research, or just sitting quietly and thinking about it. like in this case.

in the end, though, it comes down to the same thing as all of the other agnostic/atheistic objections to theism: when presented with any number of possible explanations for whatever pet objection is being presented, the atheist or agnostic retreats to the same line of defence: none of the possible explanations meet up with their particular criterion of certainty. and our reply to that is always the same: if reasonable belief can only exist in the presence of that degree of certainty, then a great deal of your beliefs are equally as unreasonable as ours.

look, you’re obviously a smart guy, and i enjoy our exchanges on this forum, but this kind of pusillanimous biblical eisegesis is a bit beneath you, i think. it’s petty, inconsequential stuff in the end, and a bit of a waste of time.

i think it’s more profitable to stick with the philosophy and the math and the physics…