Morality and Religion

ETWolverine · Sep 2, 2009, 10:17 AM

I know, I know. This is a topic we've seen before. But I'm hoping to bring a new twist to it.

There is an ongoing question of whether morality would exist if not for its religious basis. Most pro-religion people argue that morality could not have been developed if not for religion. Atheists and Agnostics tend to disagree and say that morality is based in CIVILIZATION rather than religion, and would have developed regardless of whether religion had existed or not.

I don't really know what to believe.

But I would like to make this comment. Perhaps it's a new twist, perhaps not.

What is morality?

When we think of morality today, we generally think of the "judeo-christian" (I hate that term) values that we see in the "modern world" (ei: Europe, the USA, Australia, etc.) Most Atheists that I speak to seem to assume that these "judeo-christian" morals would have developed even if Judaism and Christianity had never existed, because they are good, and just, and right, and therefore, mankind would have gotten to that point eventually, even without religion. (Or at least that is my interpretation of what I have heard them say. I could be misinterpreting their positions, and if I am, I apologize.)

But the fact is that this version of "morality" is not the only one to have existed in history.

In the judeo-christian moral system, the highest calling of man is to be good and kind to his fellow man. Call it the "golden rule", if you will.

But other moral compasses have existed in the past.

The followers of the Norse gods (Odin, Thor, Frey, Baldr, etc.), who in the USA are know as "Asatru", have a very different "highest calling". Their highest calling is to die in battle against evil... and for the very best fighters, to become the Berserker of legend... the unstoppable warrior. Their morality is based on becoming the best, most honorable, most effective, most deadly soldier/fighter/warrior they can become.

Definitely a very different form of morality. And that is just one form of morality of many that have existed in history.

The Mongols are another really great moral study... they were BRUTAL warriors that completely decimated their enemies, including destroying women and children. But they did so with the intent of bringing peace, law and justice to the lands they conquered. Their highest calling was to brutally conquer the world to make it a better place. They placed a moral value on being as brutal as possible to accomplish it.

Again, a very different moral system than we know today.

There was a particular Aztec cult that believed that the highest calling was to suffer pain willingly as a form of sacrifice to the gods. Their morality revolved around becoming able to willingly accept more and more pain. The more pain you could suffer, the closer you were to god. becoming a human sacrifice in the most painful way possible was the highest calling in that cult.

Definitely not our morality.

If not for the existence of Judaism and Christianity to form the judeo-christian morality that we accept as commonplace today, what moral compasses would we have developed?

My point is that when those who support the idea that religion is NOT the source of morality and say that morality would have developed on its own absent religion, what do they mean? Would it have been the same (or similar) moral system we live in today? Or would it have been something completely different?

And if it would have been completely different, doesn't that mean that religion and morality ARE connected, and can't be separated as some would like to believe? Wouldn't it mean that morality cannot develop without a religious background to act as a petrie dish in which to grow?

I don't know if this is a good argument. I'm just exploring a thought. I'd like your comments on this.

Elliot

ETWolverine · Sep 3, 2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

In Stalin's USSR, he wanted to eliminate religion. It was his will that determined what is right and wrong, and perhaps power was his "right" and anything that threatened it was "wrong," thus millions were eliminated. Same thing in Mao's China. Were these countries under these despots civilized?

G&P

Moreover, were they MORAL?

Great points, ITB.

Elliot

firmbeliever · Sep 3, 2009, 02:27 PM

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mora....htm/printable

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009...er-of-harvard/

Was reading these links, thought it would be interesting read for this thread.

inthebox · Sep 3, 2009, 03:46 PM

Interesting Firm:

Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior

There is a section in which they hypothesize that psychopathy / sociopathy has positive and negative evolutionary implications.

If "moralty" is primarily a function or lack of function of certain parts of the brain, can they be held to the same moral standards as the rest of society?

G&P

ETWolverine · Sep 4, 2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

Interesting Firm:

Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior

There is a section in which they hypothesize that psychopathy / sociopathy has positive and negative evolutionary implications.

If "moralty" is primarily a function or lack of function of certain parts of the brain, can they be held to the same moral standards as the rest of society?

G&P

Good question.

Is a sociopath responsible for his immorality? He is mentally incapable of making the same moral judgements that you and I make, because he has no moral compass and no emotional connection to the world around him.

Elliot

Tokugawa · Sep 4, 2009, 03:01 PM

Ahh, now we are starting to enter the murky realm of "relativism". The term relativism, as it applies to morality, is quite broad. It should, in my opinion, really be viewed as an exposition of what morality actually is, rather than a "system" that prescribes what one "ought" to do. Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.

It might perhaps be wise at this stage to distinguish between the two fundamental ethical disciplines, "Formative" or "Meta" ethics, and "Applied"or "Normative" ethics. Formative/Meta ethics deals with how we distinguish between what is "good" and "bad", and applied/normative ethics deals with the best way of "applying" those conceptions, that is to say, doing good things whilst avoiding the bad.

I personally subscirbe to a form of relativism called "subjective emotivism". I hold that all ethical/moral propositions are essentially emotive statements. The proposition "murder is wrong" is in essence the same as saying "boo to murder!!". Likewise, the proposition "charity is good" is in essence the same as saying "hooray for charity!!". This of course is a "Meta-ethical" theory, and it is I feel the most useful meta-ethical theory there is, in that it answers many questions that other theories cannot.

As for a system of "applied" ethics, I follow no such system at all. Morality is for me extremely personal, and entirely subjective. I operate completely in my own self interest, however my "self-interest" extends well beyond my "self". I am, like Nietzsche, an "immoralist". I do not believe in "our" morality, I believe in "my" morality.

Tokugawa · Sep 4, 2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Mankind is growing up. As the 20th century has shown, growing up isn't easy.

sndbay · Sep 5, 2009, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If that were the case how do you explain people like myself and my children and my parents etc who have no bible, no church attendance and still exibit the same "foundation to be good, to do good, and to be moral"?

Discipline taught by the experiences that the individual's instinctive nature, distinguished to the conscience mind in what was right or wrong.

Religion and moral law are both geared in setting rule of discipline. However we can learn instinctively by our fears what appears good and what appears bad to us.

The history of experiences that your parents and their parents have lived can effect generation after generation by the instinctive fears past down over the years. (Edit: YES by word of mouth, and what might be shown visually)

Tokugawa · Sep 5, 2009, 06:42 AM

Quote:

The history of experiences that your parents and their parents have lived can effect generation after generation by the instinctive fears past down over the years.

What possible grounds can you have for making such a claim? Unless you are suggesting that "fears past down over the years" are propagated through word of mouth, I would say that you are talking cr@p.

Edit: After reviewing your post, I now realise that you must be reffering to "word of mouth", I offer sincere apology.

inthebox · Sep 6, 2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tokugawa

Ahh, now we are starting to enter the murky realm of "relativism". The term relativism, as it applies to morality, is quite broad. It should, in my opinion, really be viewed as an exposition of what morality actually is, rather than a "system" that prescribes what one "ought" to do. Elliot has already hinted at relativism when he wrote about the difference in cultures, location, time frame etc.

It might perhaps be wise at this stage to distinguish between the two fundamental ethical disciplines, "Formative" or "Meta" ethics, and "Applied"or "Normative" ethics. Formative/Meta ethics deals with how we distinguish between what is "good" and "bad", and applied/normative ethics deals with the best way of "applying" those conceptions, that is to say, doing good things whilst avoiding the bad.

I personally subscirbe to a form of relativism called "subjective emotivism". I hold that all ethical/moral propositions are essentially emotive statements. The proposition "murder is wrong" is in essence the same as saying "boo to murder!!". Likewise, the proposition "charity is good" is in essence the same as saying "hooray for charity!!". This of course is a "Meta-ethical" theory, and it is I feel the most useful meta-ethical theory there is, in that it answers many questions that other theories cannot.

As for a system of "applied" ethics, I follow no such system at all. Morality is for me extremely personal, and entirely subjective. I operate completely in my own self interest, however my "self-interest" extends well beyond my "self". I am, like Nietzsche, an "immoralist". I do not believe in "our" morality, I believe in "my" morality.

Where does this morality come from? How does each of us have it? Or lack it, for lack of or dysfunction in part of the brain. Is a personal morality , this relativity or subjectivity really just a nice term for selfishness or narcissisism? If so, then Nietzsche's nihilism is justified.

G&P

cadillac59 · Sep 7, 2009, 08:43 PM

Religion and morality have nothing to do with one another. Some of the most amoral people are/have been highly religious and the most moral atheists.

I like what Bertand Russell said about morality being the result of conflicts of desire: "A man wishes to drink but also be fit for work the next day." It's always two competing impulses that governs our behavior. And morality evolves.