Can morality be taught apart from religion, especially from the doctrine(s) of, say, Lutheranism or Catholicism or even just Christianity in general?

I'm thinking of the sex ed thread in which several posters claimed there can be no effective sex ed classes without moral teaching and others countered that morality doesn't belong in sex ed classes.

So. A second question follows -- can sex ed be effectively taught apart from morality?

on what basis would the moral value be taught ?

If you have a society values, what are they based on.

In general moral values of all levels are based on some religious value, if not christian, of a moon god or fish god but of some religious bais

Sexual practice and sexual positions, and pregnancy prevention can be taught, but the values of not having sex until?? Marriage, until the boy asks, is all a moral value.

for example, what status stops a boy from forcing a girl to have sex? A law, but is that law based on a moral value ?

Yes, morality itself can be taught without the reference to Christianity, such as Catholicism or Lutheranism. But what kind of morality are you taking about? Even Satanists have a morality they abscribe to.

So you define the morality and you can find some philosophy somewhere that will uphold it - without a religious base. Then are you going to hold that morality to a standard? What would be your standard?

About the sexual education being taught with and without a morality clause.
I think sexual abstinence can be taught from a medical viewpoint without introducing religion. If you introduce a societal morality - whose society? The United States? Well, that does not work for obvious reasons. The U.S. is permissive, at the very least.

yes, but satanism ( not sure of the exact word) is a religion, they moral code is still based on a religious value.

But abstinecne from a medical viewpoint ? What medical viewpoint, all they can do is show how not to get pregnant, which pills, condoms and others will take care of it. So what medcially can abstinence be taught as.

Now I want it taught, but outside of morality, why?

From a medical viewpoint - the risks of having a baby at an early age, just the facts of how fast a life can change in a relatively few minutes of sexual intercourse. Not to mention having the chances of contracting some STD or incurable disease like HIV/AIDS. One can present that without attaching their morals to it.

But I understand what you are saying, Fr. Chuck, without the moral component, the class is pretty much a five minute presentation (or less) on the don'ts. Problem is, whose morals are attached to that? And why should it be left up to the schools to teach anyway? Doesn't that come from family and religious instructions? I can't see schools as too successsful either. Look at all the information out there and free exams and condoms and birth control, etc. and so on, and still we have babies having babies by the thousands.

Yes, but do kids think they will ever be the one, and if in the same class they are taught that none of that happens if they use the birth control that is being taught?

Of course sex ed, even without the moral values is better than none, or finding it out in the back of your dads Chevy.
I do believe in sex ed in school, and believe the morality should be taught at home.

True - my nephew never thought he would be a Daddy and yet he is. Arrogance and stupidity on his part. Disrespectful also, as he did not make sure that his girlfriend would be protected. If couples want to engage in intercourse then they ought to be prepared and protected. We can teach our children our moral values and the importance of staying abstinent but, as a parent, you know how fast that can fly out the window. But we try our best and pray for the rest.

You betcha, Wondergirl, I was so smart at 18 too. Lol. Too bad my brain did not match my ego at that time.

There is Classical Greek morality. After Virtue is a highly regarded book on moral philosophy by Alasdair MacIntyre published in 1981.

Can morality be taught apart from religion, especially from the doctrine(s) of, say, Lutheranism or Catholicism or even just Christianity in general?

I'm thinking of the sex ed thread in which several posters claimed there can be no effective sex ed classes without moral teaching and others countered that morality doesn't belong in sex ed classes.

So. a second question follows -- can sex ed be effectively taught apart from morality?
Sex ed cannot be effectively taught apart from morality because Sex is a moral decision. Temperance consists of not giving in too easily to the pleasures of physical sensation and is a moral virtue. Moral virtues dispose us to behave in the correct manner, it is necessary also to have the right intellectual virtues in order to reason properly about how to behave. The attempt to teach temperance outside the framework of moral virtues is like trying to teach someone to ride a bicycle without the bicycle.

The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html)

Children pretty much have the same moral/ethical standards as their parents model... honest parents who don't lie, parents who treat all others with kindness, etc.. . the kids are usually the same when they grow up. Children watch everything their parents do... remember? :)

The last book I read *in detail* was Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics... a must study for all adults. I could see where some small parts of the New Testament were borrowed and modified from this work. (Sorry my memory fails me on specifics) Aristotle speaks of virtues in his work and moderation in behavior... not to be extreme. For example, foolhardy is an extreme on one side of the virtue of courage on the other side is cowardice. The greatest virtue according to Aristotle is wisdom followed closely by justice.

A person who is building his/her own set of ethics/morality would do very well to start with Aristotle as an ethical base.

Since we live in different times from Aristotle and the writing of the Bible, we must have more updated morality... for example, vegetarianism... or women's issues. Women were pretty much in the same category as cattle in ancient times.

Subject on which volumes can be written! Very interesting. I'll just sign off here. :D

I don't see how it could, although I'm sure there are those who would claim that it could.

Yeah Choux, I think a class on Nichomachean Ethics would go a lot further helping teen pregnancy than sex education.



s_cianci

People always have reasons for their opinion, when they fail to give them it is often because there is some doubt lingering.
Anyway

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

In order to teach moral values aside from religion, the following points would have to be addressed.

1) Define "VALUES".
2) Define "MORALITY". (The two are actually different.)
3) Come to a consensus opinion on both of those definitions.
4) Determine a system to decide whether specific actions or activities fit within those definitions (or not).
5) Determine a system by which to reject the actions which do not fit the definitions, and append appropriate penalties for those actions.
6) Determine a system by which to teach that system to others.
7) Do all of these things without starting World War 3, causing a worldwide economic breakdown, and creating anarchy.

Based on the level of complexity of this task, it is my opinion that it is impossible to accomplish such a task.

Elliot

In order to teach moral values aside from religion, the following points would have to be adressed.

1) Define "VALUES".
2) Define "MORALITY". (The two are actually different.)
3) Come to a consensus opinion on both of those definitions.
4) Determine a system to decide whether specific actions or activities fit within those definitions (or not).
5) Determine a system by which to reject the actions which do not fit the definitions, and append appropriate penalties for those actions.
6) Determine a system by which to teach that system to others.
7) Do all of these things without starting World War 3, causing a worldwide economic breakdown, and creating anarchy.

Based on the level of complexity of this task, it is my opinion that it is impossible to accomplish such a task.

Elliot
What of quality, character, justice, good, knowledge, principles, being, happiness…?

I see you have chosen the present time in history as though we would need to start with a clean slate. There presently exists such a system as you suggest we would need, the e.g. America.

There presently exists such a system as you suggest we would need, the e.g. America.


There is? Las Vegas didn't get that memo. :)



Bobby

What of quality, character, justice, good, knowledge, principles, being, happiness…?

I see you have chosen the present time in history as though we would need to start with a clean slate. There presently exists such a system as you suggest we would need, the e.g. America.

First of all, since when is happiness a moral value? Or knowledge? They are certainly worth valuing, but they are not MORAL values. I could make the same argument for "quality" as well... nice to have but not a moral value.

Next, define "good" and "justice". I don't think they can be defined absent morality. MORALITY defines what is good and evil, and what is just and unjust. But we are talking about developing such a moral system from scratch, without religion to teach us what is moral. You can't use the term "good" to determine what is moral, because it is morality that defines what is good. Circular reference... it doesn't compute.

Character? Again, define it without using our moral system as a reference. What is "good character"? You need to already have a set of morals in place to make that determination. Same problem.

I didn't really start with the "present time" as my starting point. What I did was start from scratch, and assume that there is no moral system currently in place. I asumed that we would have to create such a system without any reference to our current moral systems, which all have their roots in religion. And I deliniated the problems of doing that in such as way as to get the majority of people to agree with our definitions and rules. This dilema can be set in any part of the world at any time in history, and the dilema's parameters would not change, nor the task of fixing it.

As for the moral system of the USA, do you really believe that such a system was developed absent of religion and religious values? I would strongly disagree with such a sentiment, and the writings of the Founding Fathers would seem to support my position. Even the non-religious Founders understood that they were trying to create a leagl/moral system that was steeped in the traditional values of the ages which were determined by religious values.

In any case, as I said before, I don't think that a system of morals can be created absent of religion, or absent of the moral system that exists and which is in turn based on religious values.

Elliot

I would argue that the moral system that stems from Western Tradition has its roots in Greek Philosophy; as attested to by the arguments for or against Aristotle ranging from Thomas Aquinas to Kant to Hegel to Emerson and many others. Happiness is defined as being or seeking the chief 'Good' and has been the driving force behind virtue which some have called practical wisdom and others with a kind of philosophic wisdom. There are two kinds of Virtue… intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes from teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time), while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit.

Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre senior research fellow and member of the Board of Advisors at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture did a thought experiment along the lines you suggest; you might be surprised at the conclusion.

Dark_crow agrees: Yeah…now there's a place for REAL sex education, keep it out of the schools for teens.



In LV unless your child is in a private or magnum school, they're not likely to graduate with a solid education. This is a slogan the parents of children from the Las Vegas tourism bureau most recently came up with:


"What Happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."




Bobby

ET brings up an excellent point:

Morality is about right and wrong.

Sex is a physical act, but there is a right and wrong regarding sex.

For example.

Rapist - I was acting on my urges, therefore it was "good" from my reference point. Very freudian- no repression.
Obviously for the raped it is a horrible violation.

I have herpes or aids - I want to have sex - it makes me feel "good" - "it feels better without a condom."
To the unprotected partner this is obviously this is wrong.

I want to have sex with as many girls as possible spread my genes, so my oats, so to speak. One could argue that this is evolutionaryly appropriate.
But what about, stds, relationship, childcare.

I really cannot think of a scenario in which just teaching the physical act of sex without some reference to right or wrong - can be approriate.

Actually you can teach moral virtue all day and it will not make a hoot of difference. We learn intellectual virtues such as math by teachers but moral virtues are learned by exercising them, by forming habits in them. As I mentioned earlier, it is from playing the lyre that both good and bad lyre-players are produced. The same is true of appetites and emotions; some men become moderate in appetites and good-tempered, others self-indulgent and quick-tempered, by behaving in one way or the other in the appropriate circumstances. Thus, in one word, states of character arise out of like activities.

How can one practice moral virtue if it is not taught in the first place ?

I don't know about you but I certainly see the results of the different human behaviors, both good and bad; which in turn shows me what is right and what is wrong behavior in accordance with happiness.

what is right and what is wrong behavior in accordance with happiness.


And is happiness always a part of good behavior?

I don't believe happiness is ever a part of good behavior. Good behavior is an action and happiness a state of mind.

shows me what is right and what is wrong behavior in accordance with happiness.

So what did you mean by that?

If you were asked to describe a knife, what would you say about it? In the end you would probably also say that its purpose is to cut things. Humans generally create things for specific purposes. I used happiness in the same way, both good and bad; which in turn shows me what is right and what is wrong behavior in accordance with purpose.

So if you create a moral code and follow it so that you do good and have good morals, you will be happy?

You would be happier than you would if you didn't practice the moral code you believed to be correct. I believe happiness is the “thing in itself,” as Kant called it. That is it is the final goal of humanity as a whole.

I don't believe happiness is ever a part of good behavior.

Therefore, the above isn't correct. Happiness is the result of good behavior.

Thus --


[Happiness] is the final goal of humanity as a whole.

No happiness is the goal, not the means to the goal.

Happiness is the end result of good behavior.

I guess we agree.

No we don't, because good behavior does not necessitate happiness, it only makes it possible. I could save someone life and loose a foot in the process, that would not make me happy, and at the same time the person I saved may not be happy either.

I never said it was the means.

Goal = Result.

[Happiness] only makes it possible.

So give an example or two.

I can't have good morals if I am not happy?

Helloooooooo,

There is a *gigantic moral code* in place in America other than any religious code... they are the comprehensive system of LAWS concerning just about everything that causes damages to citizens. Damage other citizens... you go to jail!

Losing the morality of religion in public life *has already happened*, and long ago. Replaced by the JUSTICE system.

Today, people are very interested in *personal ethics*... this is what my previous answer concerned. Personal Ethics. The quality of being a large cut above the average person...

WG

I would agree with you had you said…Happiness is [sometimes or often] the result of good behavior.

I suppose the misunderstanding was that I interpreted what you said as “Always,” the case.:)

Forgot, *parents* are supposed to teach sexual morality and proper enjoyment of sex. They do a terrible job here in America because the citizens in our country have been made sexually repressed and weird about sex by RELIGION... 400 years of Christian sex education!

You don't have to believe in GOD to have morals.

Buddhism and taoism have similar teaching about morals without believing in GOD.

Helloooooooo,

There is a *gigantic moral code* in place in America other than any religious code.....they are the comprehensive system of LAWS concerning just about everything that causes damages to citizens. Damage other citizens...you go to jail!!

Losing the morality of religion in public life *has already happened*, and long ago. Replaced by the JUSTICE system.

Today, people are very interested in *personal ethics*...this is what my previous answer concerned. Personal Ethics. The quality of being a large cut above the average person....
Choux, participation in Politics is a moral endeavor. Many would point to the Taliban in Afghanistan as an extreme example of this. And there have been some people who point out that the lack of virtue, due to the idea that there is no truth, no set virtues, has led to the lack of participation in America of almost half the population.

Crow, I'm going to have to beg off this interesting and complicated discussion for a couple of days; thinking more than superficially is too difficult for me right now... my glucometer has been broken for a week, and I'm having a problem getting it replaced. Having lots of problems as I live alone, etc.

I SHALL RETURN!!

Morality is relative.

___________________________


"What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike" [Alfred North Whitehead

"Without doubt the greatest injury... was done by basing morals on myth, for sooner or later the myth is recognized for what it is, and disappears. Then morality loses the foundation on which it has been built'. [Sir Herbert Samuel]

"No morality can be founded on authority, even if the authority were divine". [A.J.Ayer]

"When you prevent me from doing anything I want to do, that is persecution: but when I prevent YOU from doing anything you want to do, that is law, order and morals" [George Bernard Shaw] :)

Can morality be taught apart from religion????? Can sex ed be effectively taught apart from morality?Hello girl:

1) Yes; don't hit is a moral lesson. I don't see any religion there.

2) Yes; put this in here and wear a raincoat. I don't see any morality there.

excon

Excon,

"Don't hit" is not a moral lesson. It is a LEGAL lesson.

A moral lesson is that hurting others is bad for you, bad for the other person and bad for society as a whole.

But such moral decisions require a system under which to decide what is moral and what is not. From an historic perspective, that system of morality began with and continues to operate with religion as the underlying rules.

For example, if we are to believe the text of the Bible, Sodom was a society in which murder, theft, rape, slavery, and other acts of what we refer to as "immorality" were commonplace and acceptable. They did not have the religious base under whih to decide what was and was not moral, and as a result, they never developed "morality" as we understand it... or any other system of morality, as far as I can tell. Therefore, all the acts that we assume to be "naturally" immoral were not forbidden to their society.

There is no such thing as "morality" from nature. Morality is a concept that had to be developed over time. It did not develop in a vacuum, and it did not come about naturally. It took a long time for us to develop our sense of morality, and that sense only began with religion (an organized set of rules for how to live life) as a source. Absent religion, there is no morality.

The proof is that in some parts of the world, things that we take as immoral are perfectly normal. We know that "hitting" is wrong, but the African Warlord who kills at whim, who beats those weaker than him, who steals from the poor, who does all of these immoral acts, doesn't consider himself immoral for doing those things. And neither do his victims, truth be told... since oftentimes, the victims are themselves perpetrators of the same acts against others who are weaker than they are. There's nothing naturally "immoral" about what they are doing... it is only in OUR highly developed moral view that they are acting immorally.

So, since morality is not "natural", the moral rule of "don't hit" had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is "religion". Without religion, there would be no morality because it could not have come into being on its own.

DC will argue that morality could (or maybe he argues that they did) develop from philosophy rather than religion. However, in this context, I see the two as one and the same. Philosophy is, at its essence the study of how man should live life. Religion is a set of rules for how man should live life. For all intents and purposes, they are the same in the context of the development of morality.

Elliot

But such moral decisions require a system under which to decide what is moral and what is not. From an historic perspective, that system of morality began with and continues to operate with religion as the underlying rules.Hello Elliot:

Bull!

We knew it was wrong to hit long before somebody had to tell us. Just like we knew that murder and stealing was wrong.

Ok, let me think about that for a minute... Soooooo, for the last 150,000 years of our existence, we've only just in the last 5,000 years learned that murder was wrong?? And, we only found that out because God told us??

Elliot, Dude!

excon

(excon - I was going to finish with the comment that conscience is what you're talking about.)

We know that there is such a thing as conscience. In fact, the Bible tells us about conscience, that it predates the Ten Commandments. Conscience is a check on our imperfect nature and makes it possible for people to live together.

If a "conscience" or a "moral compass" is "natural" to humans, why are some people born without one? Why are there dictators, killers, etc. out there who clearly operate without a conscience or a moral compass.

In fact, I'll take that question further. If morality is "natural", why has human history NEVER had a period in which there was no war, no murder, no rape, no theft, no pilaging and plundering those weaker than us?

The fact is that it is those "immoral" acts that are natural to humanity, and "morality" is our attempt to climb above that nature. We had to create that morality, because it WASN'T natural to us.

Otherwise we wouldn't have to teach kids "don't hit". It is that very lesson... a lesson that has to be taught to children before they follow it... that proves that it is unnatural to humanity. If it were natural, it wouldn't have to be taught. It would be instinctive from birth, like suckling.

I know you have a family, Excon. I don't know if you do, Wondergirl. But I have two kids, ages 7 and 5. They fight all the time, as most brothers and sisters do at that age. "Don't Hit" is not a lesson that is natural to them, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it to each other. It's a lesson that takes repetition over a long period until children get it. That is NOT how something that is natural is supposed to work.

And please don't argue "outside influences"... my kids don't watch TV or movies, so they aren't getting that violent "outside influence" common to other kids. But they fight anyway, because THAT is what is natural... not "moral behavior".

We can argue about where morality comes from. But to argue that it is "natural" to humanity is clearly wrong. If morality were "natural", we wouldn't need jails, we wouldn't need cops, we wouldn't need a Constitution, we wouldn't need to punish thieves, murderers and other violent criminals, because they would be a lot more rare than they are, because such violence would be unnatural is morality were truly natural.

Sorry guys, but that boat don't float.

Elliot

If a "conscience" or a "moral compass" is "natural" to humans, why are some people born without one? Why are there dictators, killers, etc. out there who clearly operate without a conscience or a moral compass.

In fact, I'll take that question further. If morality is "natural", why has human history NEVER had a period of time in which there was no war, no murder, no rape, no theft, no pilaging and plundering those weaker than us?

"Don't Hit" is not a lesson that is natural to them, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it to each other. It's a lesson that takes repetition over a long period of time until children get it. That is NOT how something that is natural is supposed to work.

Sorry guys, but that boat don't float.

Hello again, El:

I suggest much of your misguided political philosophy stems from your basic misunderstanding of human nature. Certainly, if you believe that people can only do right if they're told what right is, then it follows that you would support the "authority" who's doing the telling.

The concept, therefore, of natural law would be meaningless to you.

I'll just point out a few minute details of your wrongness.

It's natural to be born with two legs, but every once in a while somebody comes along without any legs at all. That doesn't mean it isn't natural to be born with two.

It's natural for us NOT to eat dirt. Nonetheless, children have to be prevented from eating dirt. You seem to be suggesting that if they weren't, we'd be eating dirt.

I'm perplexed by your next statement, though. You also seem to be saying that even AFTER being told the difference between right and wrong by the "authority", that we're not able to do it anyway. I don't disagree. So what?

People don't do good after they've been told about right and wrong. And, they do no better even if they didn't have to be told. You seem to be saying they would. I don't know why you would think that.

You're talking about performance. I'm not. Inherently knowing right from wrong doesn't give humans a leg up on performance.

excon