How would society be affected if there were no types of religion in America?
|
How would society be affected if there were no types of religion in America?
This is a big topic. Notice your other questions are homework - is this?
It would be a worse place than it already is. A place with no ethics.
A lack of religion wouldn't prevent ethics and morals from existing.
It just is not possible, there are always a religion of some sort in any and every society. In fact it is religion that often sets up most of the social structure. Be it worship of a animal, worship of the sun and moon.
But without religion, something or some idea would take over as the religion.
Many rulers have used religion and the control of it, to control society.
So we see that communism was a religion or a replacement of it and materialism is replacing religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
This is correct. Religion is not a prerequisite for an ethical theory.
Tut
What WOULD be a prerequisite?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
A philosophy, a set of cultural norms, to name two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Is your name TUT317? JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Do you think a philosophy would have the force of religion? And religion, of course, IS a cultural norm.
There are cultural (e.g. familial) norms apart from religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I agree, but do any of the non-religious cultural norms have the power and force of religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Well, China might be a good example. Japan too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Both China and Japan are deeply rooted culturally in religion. The present Chinese ruling class (communism) is officially "anti-religion", but it allows religious observances, and has even resurrected Confucius in the last few decades - a social philosopher, you may say, but fundamentally based in the spirituality of ancestor worship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Japan has always been a deeply religious society - whether Shintoism, Buddhism, or even Christianity.
Most societies today are secular, but their morality derives from religion, often ancient, but still powerful. The US and Europe remain "morally informed" by their Judeo-Christian past, even though "Church" is no longer identified with "State".
Hi Athos,Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The only requirement for a ethics is that you have a problem and you are prepared to think about it. It would be a mistake to think that ethics is just an 'academic' study although academics are are bit more systematic when it comes to examining everyday problems. By this I mean they tend to think of the problem in terms of its wider implications for society.
For example, a hedonist thinks the only thing worth pursuing is pleasure and that he/she ought to pursue as much pleasure as possible. You don't have to be a philosopher to be a hedonist. Little children tend to be hedonistic. Hedonism is an ethical theory but what makes it such is that philosophers tend to think about the wider implications of hedonism, i.e other people and society.
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Hi again Athos,
I think what you are saying is that these societies don't distinguish religion from politics and ethics- this is pretty true. It still may well be the case today.
Western society also had a history of this 'lack of distinction'. If we look at the Greek philosophers we will see that epistemology ( theory of knowledge) was just that. A singular theory of knowledge that explained politics, ethics, religion and society. All could be accounted for under one theory.
Today, we have a huge number of different theories to explain religion, ethics and politics. I probably should add that MOST societies do so. Some theocratic societies still see the importance of no separation of different aspects of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Which brings me to the next point.
I would say that most societies are secular, but some of their morality is derived from their Christian past but not all of it.
Consider the hedonist example. Out of hedonism grew a theory know as utilitarianism. No room to go into details, but you can Google it if your like. Basically, utilitarianism means that an action is considered right if it produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number. An action is considered wrong if it produces the opposite.
This is an entirely secular theory that plays an important role in politics and ethics in modern society. Such theories highlight the separation of church and state. This is important because no separation between church and state can give rise to a theocracy. Such a state is of course totalitarian.
Tut
Thanks, Tut. But I have no idea what you're trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Hi Athos,
If I am a hedonist then I think that the only thing worth while in my life is to seek pleasure. Pleasure seeking is all that I ever want to do. This is an ethical theory. Not a very good one, but it is an ethical theory nonetheless.
If one the other hand, I am both a hedonist and a philosopher then I am still of the opinion that self gratification is the be all and end all. However, as a philosopher I would probably tend to wonder what impact my hedonistic behaviour has on other people. I might also start to wonder what would happen if everyone in society had the same attitude as myself.
As a philosopher I might also think about these things and write them down in the form of a theory.
That's pretty much all I was saying in the first bit.
Tut
Hi, Tut,Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
If you're saying that the need for morality (ethics) originates in the human condition, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Hi Athos,
That's what I am wanting to say.
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 AM. |