My first ever topic!
Aaaanyway.
I pose to you: morality without a conception of religion is utterly groundless. Not meaningless, but completely groundless. Goodness for the sake of goodness is a completely ridiculous concept.
Chiefly, I’m attacking Bertrand Russell’s views on the non-existence of God, while also being able to state, in the same essay, that some of Jesus’s actions, and the actions of his Christian followers, were “evil”.
I want to point out that this distinction is purely metaphysical, not practical or even ethical- that is, someone with no religion, no conception of God, can still behave morally, and they may even have good practical reasons to do so. What they will not have is a justification that their actions are truly ‘good’, or that people who disagree with them about the nature of the good are incorrect.
Do you agree with the TAE?
What reasons do you have to support your claims? A serious discourse cannot be indulged if we are not provided reasons for your conclusions. We can, of course, go on pseudo-intellectual tangents based on what we assume your points are, but that might end up being a misrepresentation of your intent. So, please expound a bit.
What do you have to support the claim that “morality without a conception of religion is utterly groundless…”, and the claim “Goodness for the sake of goodness is a completely ridiculous concept.”
Ok I’ll expound.
What does an athiest mean, after say he helps an old lady across the road, when he says “I did something good today”?
When a religious person does the same, we know him to mean something akin to “I acted in conformity with certain religious tenets that ask of me to do actions that aide other people”.
What does the athiest mean when he calls his actions “good”?
When you call the Holocaust “an evil act”, what do you mean?
I can see why a religious person would call this act evil, due to his tenets asking him to feel compassion, etc for his fellow man, which has been supposedely asked by God. But why would an athiest feel compassion for those involved in some kind of tragedy?
Ever heard of empathy…? Compassion is a human characteristic and the moral tenets of religion are, after all, only a reflection of our human traits…not a cause of them.
Not groundless, morality is functional and a necessity with or without religion. The grounds are…we couldn’t form co-operative society’s without it. Goodness for goodness sake is more noble and enriching than goodness for reward in heaven or to avoid punishment in hell…and no less ridiculous, since there is nothing at all to prove either of those states exist.
True…and that’s a good thing eh? Believing you posess certain insight into moral absolutes can be dangerous. But aren’t conscience and reason justifications of a sort…?
TO your first comment, I would have to say ‘dangerous how’? Yes, thinking you are absolutely correct about moral ideas can be very dangerous if you are wrong, but in general, I wouldn’t say it’s that bad a thing. To your question, I would agree- conscience is a justification of one’s personal moral convictions. Do you think they apply across people though? Can I use my conscience to justisfy to your satisfaction that something is right or wrong?
In general perhaps not. In Western societies most religious morality has had to accomodate to secular values anyway and is as relative as any other since most believers pick and choose what moralities gel with their conscience and reason from their holy books and discard the rest. But in more repressive religious cultures moral certainty can have lethal consequences and how can you challenge something which supposedly has the approval of God?
No, but you can use reason.
I’m not sure I’d agree that compassion is human characteristic, but even so, why SHOULD one act on it?
Again, on what grounds do you form the idea of nobility, if devoid of religion? I can say any course of action is noble or good if I want to, if I judge it by my own standards and by no one else’s.
I would fundanmentally disagree with you on the existence of a conscience. The only reason we feel we have one is by the moral tenets imbided within from birth, from our parents and from society.
[quote]
The only reason we feel we have one is by the moral tenets imbided within from birth, from our parents and from society.
[quote]
I have a couple of responses to your statement here:
Prove it.
If it is the case, what’s the problem? It is also because of our parents and our society that we have language, mathematics, political views, science, and most of our personality traits and attitudes.
You can’t stir the jam out of the porridge. Whether or not morailty is social or intrinsic, all of us grow up in social contexts, and those contexts affect the expression of our personal traits. Just because morality may have been engendered by society, that doesn’t mean it isn’t extremely powerful and important.
cheers,
gemty
Some of us don’t. My proof, albeit indicative proof, is the cases of children, mostly in Russia, who, without parents, have grown up with wolves and dogs in abandoned estates. They act exactly the same as these animals, and obey exactly the same instinctive behaviour devoid of morality.
Comrade Elvis,
The idea that god will reward people for helping others + faith = selfish motive for all action. Faith in “justice” after death helps peoples selfishness turn into charity.
This “faith” is not the back-bone of morality. Non-superstitious rewards systems can exist within the mind. Example:
I don’t want life on earth to go extinct so I will not be such a son-of-a-bitch.
^
Obviously a rarity, but this attitude is possible without any religion at all, it is merely a good desire for towards life forms other then yourself.
Even animals are capable of morality*. It depents which species we are going to talk about, but NONE OF THESE HAVE ANY TIES WITH RELIGION.
Let’s keep faith and morality in different cages, shall we?
Have a nice day.
Why should one act on fear, hate, love, loathing, pity, greed or any other human urge or feeling then? Religion itself is the satisfaction of a human urge. Feelings motivate us into actions as do social and cultural pressures…if nothing else, compassion is a social expectation.
Why do I need religion to form an idea of nobility? Religion doesn’t hold the patent on noble concepts and why should it make morality any more noble than it would be without it? If anything at all can be called noble then performing good deeds for their own sake can be, more so I would have thought than acting morally because of the carrot and stick of religion. Nowhere in the Bible is there a moral directive unaccompanied by the promise of reward or the threat of punishment…the cash nexus of religion. This is no more noble or superior or morally elevating than secular laws and punishments designed to keep people in line.
We all have the mechanism for a conscience, but I agree that it needs to be filled. Without social imput it would be empty. It doesn’t have to be filled with religion to operate though. People need moral values to live co-operatively, with or without a God.
I find that this distinction is commonplace but nonsense.
I have said in the past that the “righteous†of the Bible are not righteous because they only do good things or the “evil†those who only do bad things. There is enough empirical evidence to prove that non-religious people have a good sense of judgement and usable ethics. The difference is really in that the righteous are those who know that they have a one-sided view, and tend to extremism if they don’t attain the completeness that is only obtainable in Unity. Therefore, they seek betterment and advice.
The “evil†on the other hand, scoff at such ideas, they jibe at religious practise and sneer at devotion and effectively throw the baby out with the bathwater, because, as loathing religious practise can be, there is a prime truth in the self-recognition of religion. The man who defies anyone to prove that he is a sinner just hasn’t understood what sin is – or he doesn’t care. Therefore, this man is deemed “evilâ€. He will still kiss his baby and care for it though, he will love his mother and even be friendly to the neighbour, that is not where his “evil†lies. Rather, it is his illusory ideas about himself.
Generally that his actions achieved the aim he had set before he acted.
Why shouldn’t atheists weep at the atrocity of trying to wipe out a nation? They are human beings who can feel for such victims.
Shalom
I think maybe you didn’t get it. There were three points for you to answer.
Yes, there are some children that grow up wild with dogs and wolves and have no morals, language, methematics, etc.
But my real question was, so what?
The next two points were meant to address the fact that you seemed to be dismissing conscience and morality by saying that the only reason we have them is because they are handed on to us by our parents and society.
If you’re just making an observation, it isn’t that insigtful. If you’re making a claim about the importance of conscience and morality based on the fact that they aren’t intrinsic, then address language, mathematics, etc. For these are also handed down to us from our parents and society.
cheers,
gemty
Consider a hypothetical integral; called the Net Joy Integral.
Give every self equity and say that every self (rather than every particle) be polled as to its emotional condition; add it all up to arrive at a benchmark.
Now; all other things being equal, what does a particular act do to this integral?
Leda
You don't strike me as someone that believes God plays a very active role in our lives. If my assumption is correct, then you'd have to admit is really easy to question something that has the approval of God- so long as it doesn't have the approval of the state. If there is no God, then it's is people with a desire to rule that create the situations you describe, and it seems likely to me that if they didn't have religion, they would have something else.
Also, repressive moral cultures aren't necessarily a bad thing are they? It must depend on what they are repressive, and how do we judge the difference?
You can use reason to show that something is morally wrong? Perhaps, if the thing in question can reasonably be shown to be similar to something else both parties agree is right or wrong. But that’s the only way I can see- moral beliefs are generally rational things. In fact, rationality is more based on morality than the other way around, I would say.
Also, on empathy:
Would you disagree then, that children have to be taught to be compassionate?
Uccisor,
I think any state, religious or otherwise, which doesn’t allow for challenges to and debates about the prevailing morality is a bad thing but I do get your point that all cultures are necessarily repressive to some degree…
Of course you can use reason to show something is morally wrong. How else can it be done? Even religious morality was decided by human reason, unless you believe every religious moral directive is really from God, which I think is a very big stretch. In fact our morality moved forward only because of reason. We didn’t stop burning witches, trading in slaves and other barbaric cruelties because we miraculously became more compassionate. It’s because we worked out for ourselves that these previously accepted moral values weren’t serving us well. What is innate in us is the capacity to be moral agents…not the morals themselves. Those we appear to work out as we go along.
Well, as I said, compassion is a social expectation, so yes I think we are taught it. But in order to be taught, again, we must have the capacity for it…some more than others it seems.
Leda says:
Is there anything in this ‘capacity’ for compassion that allows one to act outside culturally taught expectations? I’m wondering about actions by individuals that are obviously empathetic, but seem to be outside of social expectations. As an example, the person who risks their life in an attempt to save a complete stranger from a house fire? Is such an act simply a learned cultural response to expections or is it something else?
Leda
I could agree with this- the State will be oppressive at any point in time, because that’s what it is there for, but the things it restricts or permits over time should be changeable and examinable by the people.
Waitaminute...slavery wasn't serving us well? I think it was serving 'us' very well- under the definition of 'us' at the time. We just changed the definition of who 'we' were. Now, I think the decision to abolish slavery (at least chattel slavery) was the right decision, but I don't see it being based on reason. For example, you use the term 'barbaric cruelty'- how is that a reasonable thing? It sounds like a thing of emotion, instinct, and reaction. Now, we can use reason to say "If A is barbaric, then B is likely barbaric as well, because A and B are similar in respect C." But that's just a comparison- it's not where those root moral notions come from.
At the same time, I guess I’d have to agree with this, though. Morals seem to be something that is taught, not something we are born knowing- or if we do have some innate moral sense, it is certainly not suffecient.