Religion, ethics, and morality

[Devildoc]

@ke4gde and I have been having a spirited (no pun intended), enlightening, and respectful convo in the "what's wrong with the right?" thread. I do not mind having my assumptions poked and challenged, and I like the debate. I will say I have learned as much on SS as I ever had in any college ethics class. But I am not sure our convo is staying true to that thread.

I want to continue the conversation about religion, ethics, and morality in a separate thread. Now, I am no moderator, but the ground rules need to be the same as the "what's wrong with...." threads: civility, no attacks, blah blah blah. If it starts to derail, I will ask to pull the plug. We have too many friends here to let this become a wedge.

In full disclosure, I am a Christian, but not a Bible-thumper; nor to I proselytize or preach. I will defend my beliefs, but I am respectful of everyone else's beliefs. Believe what you want, how you want...I am very libertarian in that regard. Post away.

 

[amlove21]

You need no organized religion or god to be moral and posses ethics.

Change my mind.

 

[Devildoc]

@amlove21 , I can't change your mind. I think you can have morals and ethics without having a faith. But you cannot have faith without morals and ethics.

When it comes to a moral compass, one needs to ask yourself, what is that Compass? What gives you your values and morality? You can't say Society. Because Society changes. Certainly it's not legislation, because there are tons of immoral and unethical laws.

But I would say that there is a higher probability of being amoral or unethical if one is an atheist.

 

[amlove21]

@amlove21 , I can't change your mind. I think you can have morals and ethics without having a faith. But you cannot have faith without morals and ethics.

When it comes to a moral compass, one needs to ask yourself, what is that Compass? What gives you your values and morality? You can't say Society. Because Society changes. Certainly it's not legislation, because there are tons of immoral and unethical laws.

But I would say that there is a higher probability of being amoral or unethical if one is an atheist.

I don't mind having my mind changed my friend. It was a meme reference and not an actual challenge.

In order to make be believe in an "objective but also absolute" morality, you'd need to tell me how Thetans, Odin, Jesus and Allah are all equally right and valid. THEN we would need to resolve their mutual exclusivity and differences on "what is moral" (e.g., pork? No pork?). I don't think there is any logical way you could do that.

What I am saying is; no, I reject your claim that there is a higher probability of someone being "amoral or unethical" as an atheist. I won't play the data out (I understand your intent), because that's not helpful. I'll say this- even per capita, not a lot of atheists making the news cause of religiously motivated (or ethnically motivated reinforced by religious beliefs) mass shootings or hate crimes. And no, I will not accept a single religion on it's own. If a muslim throws a bunch of acid in a woman's face, religion owns that as a whole.

The question was originally, a derivitave of "what true good can be done with a god that can not be done without one", which is a pretty common question about objective morality existing. Did you need to be taught that murder is bad? How about rape? Stealing? Furthermore, you needed to be taught by a specific book you believe in mostly because of geographical birth and familial history?

I think right and wrong- true moral compass type things- are inherently contained in our DNA. There are outliers, like psychopaths and the like, but as a whole? We know right from wrong and as sentient beings, we can engage in high level philosophical debates to explore the infinite grey area we inhabit as humans.

To say that I don't know how to be moral (or that I have a higher probability to commit amoral acts) without subscribing to one of the 2,337 recognized gods? That's just insane.

To posit that there is some sort of force that gives those senses to us, all of us, regardless of religion as part of "who we are"... I could get down with that. But that's a STRETCH.

Just my opinion.

 

[Devildoc]

I don't mind having my mind changed my friend. It was a meme reference and not an actual challenge.

In order to make be believe in an "objective but also absolute" morality, you'd need to tell me how Thetans, Odin, Jesus and Allah are all equally right and valid. THEN we would need to resolve their mutual exclusivity and differences on "what is moral" (e.g., pork? No pork?). I don't think there is any logical way you could do that.

What I am saying is; no, I reject your claim that there is a higher probability of someone being "amoral or unethical" as an atheist. I won't play the data out (I understand your intent), because that's not helpful. I'll say this- even per capita, not a lot of atheists making the news cause of religiously motivated (or ethnically motivated reinforced by religious beliefs) mass shootings or hate crimes. And no, I will not accept a single religion on it's own. If a muslim throws a bunch of acid in a woman's face, religion owns that as a whole.

The question was originally, a derivitave of "what true good can be done with a god that can not be done without one", which is a pretty common question about objective morality existing. Did you need to be taught that murder is bad? How about rape? Stealing? Furthermore, you needed to be taught by a specific book you believe in mostly because of geographical birth and familial history?

I think right and wrong- true moral compass type things- are inherently contained in our DNA. There are outliers, like psychopaths and the like, but as a whole? We know right from wrong and as sentient beings, we can engage in high level philosophical debates to explore the infinite grey area we inhabit as humans.

To say that I don't know how to be moral (or that I have a higher probability to commit amoral acts) without subscribing to one of the 2,337 recognized gods? That's just insane.

To posit that there is some sort of force that gives those senses to us, all of us, regardless of religion as part of "who we are"... I could get down with that. But that's a STRETCH.

Just my opinion.

Yeah, I know the meme. Just being funny.

The reason I claim that an atheist has a higher probability isn't because of any of those things. And because it's late and I have to go to bed I am not sure I can articulate the reasoning quickly, but I will try. A person of faith--Christian, Hindu, whatever--might falter with morality, but that faith is the force that binds their being. An atheist? An atheist can change on a whim. If all he has is himself to decide what is right or wrong, then he has...what? I don't know. One can say it's "just knowing right from wrong," but what if those terms changed tomorrow? Right and wrong are largely black and white, but there's a whole lotta gray.

I agree that an atheist can be moral and ethical. I have known atheists who made better Christians than some Christians I know.

I reject the premise that a faith 'owns' the action of one who does immoral things. I do not know about Islam, but Christianity and Judaism is clear that those people are doing so 'on their own,' even if it is under a claim to be for God/Allah/whomever. Jesus makes very clear that people will call themselves believers but will not live it out.

So I think morality and faith are parallel 'things' that can or cannot intersect.

I appreciate your opinion.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

You need no organized religion or god to be moral and posses ethics.

Change my mind.

Keep it up.....tomorrow will be frogs!!!!!

 

[AWP]

We're all influenced by religion, even indirectly. Our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs of our FF and Western civilization at the time. Religion may preach ethics and morals, but there are plenty out there who claim to be religious, but are that in name only. You can be ethical and moral with or without religion.

 

[The Hate Ape]

Morality is relative to your society. Even the athiests of the western world hold nearly as many christian/catholic values as those who practice the faith. The same can be observed in other regions of the world.

Though humans are unique creatures, we’re very “herd like” and original thought is often just a matter of forgotten history.

 

[Box]

Religion as a concept can be tricky.
People have said for generations that hell will be full of preachers come judgment day. Some people "religiously" live their lives as atheists and preach as hard on THEIR belief system as the workaday street corner bible thumper.

Ethics is just another excuse for an argument in most cases. Was it ethical for the Ford Motor Company to put the Pinto on the market when there was more than enough data to suggest there was a hazard? The goal was a CHEAP automobile. Ford executives made the best argument that sensible people could make - Ford Executives and engineers put their OWN family members in those cars. The idea that Ford intentionally - willfully - maliciously - built a car that would murder the occupants in a firestorm with little else than a rear end collision is just silly.
...but Ford lost BIG and secured their place in the classroom of every Business Ethics student for the rest of human existence.
For that matter, is a cheeseburger ethical?

I'd think some might agree that the only difference between morals and ethics would be the spelling. Is abortion moral? Is the death penalty?
Abortion saves us from unwanted children - so does the death penalty.

Cheeseburgers are unethical because, meat and we should only eat vegetables - but GMO's that could feed countless vegetarians (or starving people) are also unethical because, frankensteinfood.
...its almost like some people are just contrarian in nature.


I embrace hypocrisy since we all seem to have our favorite flavor of hypocritical behavior. My hypocrisy tastes like steak and death penalty but that doesn't mean that activists should be put in the electric chair. At least not until they start putting ground glass into dog food so hunting dogs cant hurt ducks.
...or until they start spiking trees so loggers cant cut down old growth pine
...or an anti-abortion protestor sets an abortion clinic on fire

Faith is the tricky one - faith in what?
Is it a faith that there are alternate planes of consciousness that cannot be proven by science?
...could be part of the multiverse
...could be heaven
It seems both "possibilities" depend on whether someone is a theist or an atheist.

Is it faith in extraterrestrial existence? Are they angels or aliens? Ghosts or spirits?
Most people dont want their minds changed on issues of faith, religion, or morality - the consequences of being "wrong" are too much for people to handle.

...just my opinion, I could be wrong

 

[BlackSmokeRisinG]

My best argument towards religious morality is look where you want to live, and what people you want to be around. There can be plenty of cool people from religion x, but as a whole society which set of rules does everyone want to live under? That doesn't discount there has never been a perfectly religious society.

Love your nieghbor as you would love yourself did not come around until Jesus. It wasn't until CENTURIES later that humans created civilizations with any upward mobility and a big chunk of society were not slaves.

We could look to the Scandanavian models of ethical economic equality compared to other industrialized countries where there are super rich and dirt poor. You could say "there it is, the best model of society", but that's ~30mil. people in a nice area of Europe. No guarantee they'll withstand the huge influx of foreigners either.

In the end it's all relative. I'm christian, but sin all the time. I see religion like martial arts or exercise. We have plenty of folks who try to get really fit, but how many always eat perfect, train and stay on top? It's hard. Lots of martial arts practitioners but few black belts and masters. That doesn't mean excersise, martial arts, morality or ethics are a waste of time.

 

[Kraut783]

“Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed.” - Dan Brown


Ocoka, your last paragraph is spot on....at least to me.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Watching the World Cup I am reminded how many countries have Crosses on their flags.

Anywho...how are those frogs @amlove21 ?

 

[Devildoc]

Non-Christians often point to Christians as being flawed (we are), pointing out our behavior is not very Christ-like (it's not). It's impossible to live a truly Christ-like life, but we are called to try. Does that make us hypocrites? Not sure. But it does make us flawed. The Bible is emphatic that people will fall and falter, and that all people sin. Because I am not well educated in Islam and Judaism, I can't say whether that is the case with those religions.

 

[DozerB]

Regarding ethics and religion and morality, one need only ask himself and others one question:

- according to what standard?

If there is no timeless, eternal, unchanging standard of morality external to human invention, then your feelings about what is right are as baseless as my opposite belief that those things are wrong. You think me cheating on my wife is bad? Well I disagree; cheating with dozens of women MAKES ME HAPPY. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? (so the argument goes)

If we are all a giant cosmic accident, nothing more than developed pond scum, you really have no basis upon which to tell me I shouldn’t be racist. “Shouldn’t?” Who says what I should and shouldn’t do? Why should I care? Because society says so? The same society that used to overwhelmingly support the enslavement and dehumanization of African -Americans?

The legal system? The same legal system that equated black Americans to animals?

Modern thinking? The same modern thinking that isn’t even allowed to say that men can’t become women simply because they feel like it?

Either absolute truth exists or it doesn’t. And if it does, there must be an absolute truth giver. But for a society that loves to tell others that what they are doing is wrong, we sure do our damndest to try and justify relative truth. Maybe that’s why we have 140,445 new genders every week, because saying there are things that are absolutely true, everywhere, and in every instance, has become hate speech. Now, it’s all about finding “my truth.”

Atheists can be “moral” people; the question is whose morality are they following? And why? How do they know it’s the correct one? Is it possible that their moral framework will be seen much like the Third Reich or the KKK 100 years from now? Of course it is. When there is no objective, absolute, unchanging standard, you get what we have now: feelings-based morality. If it makes me happy, it’s good. If it makes me have a frowny face, it’s clearly bad, regardless of the implications or underlying consequences.

P.S. I’m a cisgendered male WASP so please read this post through the lens of one with absolutely off-the-charts levels of privilege

 

[amlove21]

Anywho...how are those frogs @amlove21 ?

You will not believe this- but nothing happened! It's almost like, because of everyone having a 4g video camera in their pocket at all times, that miracles and plagues and supernatural occurrences have completely dropped off. It's almost like... never-mind.

I think a lot of the conversation here has gone the way that many of these do; the evolution of the discussion has sort of led away from the initial question to be answered.

"Do you need faith in a higher power to act morally and with ethics?"

@Devildoc I outright reject your claim that atheist or non-faith based people are more likely to act immorally. Not only do I reject that claim on it's face, I would challenge you to find me more examples of non-faith based people acting on that "belief" than I could find faith based people acting solely ON their motivation of belief (allah told me to be a suicide bomber; god told me to bomb an abortion clinic). The crimes purported in the name of a god, any god, FAR outnumber any actions of individuals in the name of "I don't believe in a god". That's just the starter for religion (of any type) vs. morality.

@Box , "I don't believe you" isn't a faith. Science isn't a religion. If you don't "believe" science, don't go to the hospital, trash your phone and get off the internet. Sorry, it's part and parcel. You don't get to dismiss the single reason why America is the leading superpower in the world, and that's science and technological advancement. I've heard the argument, and this isn't a personal shot at you- but the argument is fucking trash.

So when you say, "Each side requires faith and each side practices their own form of religion", I feel that is a wild misunderstanding of all sides of the conversation. To further extrapolate the opposing side's philosophical understanding of good and evil or right or wrong solely off your misunderstanding- that is at best intellectually dishonest.

@DozerB , you're falling in to the same trap. To what standard, indeed. Don't you worry about allah's judgment on your eating swine? Don't you just lay at night, awake, worried about his judgment? To what standard are you living your life? (Pause for dramatic effect). I have a feeling you don't worry about allah's wrath because you don't feel that's a logical reason to worry. Now, what if I told you, that there are a whole group of people that feel the SAME way about your god (and cheating on your wife or whatever) that you feel about allah? How does that make you feel? By your own standard, if allah was right, and you were wrong, wouldn't you be the wrong one?

Here is the bottom line-

Anyone claiming an objective ("true") morality on the behalf of a god must first prove their god. "Your" morality isn't "everyone's" morality. Muslims think it's moral to have women covered and beaten for offenses. The Aztec's sacrificed virgins and ripped hearts out of their enemies on a pyramid for good weather. Surprise- they were as faith-based as they come.

Regardless of what "values and ethics" may be prevalent in the region (America has judeo-christian morals, middle east countries have other moral sets), the non-faith communities in those regions don't act in accordance with those values sets; they're just moral people. It would be far more logical to believe that all humans have have an inherent compass; an inherent object morality that guides them regardless of race, religion or upbringing than it would be to assume that religion brought that morality to the region and those that live there without the dominating religion just adopted their moral edicts cause that was the ONE thing they got right. It would be much more reasonable to think that religion was imposed as a majority opinion with the underpinnings of a morality that was already apparent.

Why?

Because despite mutually exclusive, violent, and wildly varying standards between religions of "what is right or moral", humans find a way to establish a pretty clear and present line across all humanity for what is acceptable, and that defies those pesky rules each religion possesses while proclaiming they're the "right one". When is it ok to kill? Keep slaves? Oppress women? Commit genocide to tribes not your own? Well, that's where real wiggle room lies. Do as you need, with the blessing of your god.

For me, without faith, the only person I can justify things to is myself. I can tell the difference between right and wrong. I don't need a book, and I certainly don't need one that advocates and outlines slavery (all three books) or rape and torture of enemies (all three books) or dietary restrictions (all three books) or... That's enough.

 

[SaintKP]

I've mainly been lurking this thread and reading everyone's opinions and so far it's been a great discussion. But I think it's getting caught up in what is moral and whether people who don't ascribe to a religion have a higher chance of being immoral, with arguments ranging from how differing forms of religion influences ones own belief in what is moral and not, to certain actions that go beyond just the base "golden rule" and whether those are moral or not.

I believe full heartedly that morality is formed from the society you are raised in, as well as the innate nature in all of us. Aside from special cases where a child is born predisposed to evil (which is another discussion entirely), how often will you see a child act immorally? I'm talking about simply being a kind and decent human being, something I think we can all agree on is morally good.

It almost never happens right? For children that are raised in a religious setting as well as those who are not, there comes a point when yes a childs outlook is molded by the society and setting they're raised around whether that comes from the paternal beliefs placed upon them, or society's social and religious outlook.

That's why there have been moments in history where as @amlove21 nentioned, people have committed some pretty heinous actions in the name of any number of religions, as well as those who dont ascribe to any form of one.

You don't need a book to tell you to not be a piece of shit to others, that's something that should be taught as a kid and reinforced as you grow up. I'm agnostic and while I may drink, swear, party a little too hard, and have a deep and profound love for bacon. I still try and live my life by interacting with others how I would want to be treated as well. Something that I feel like everyone can universally agree upon on, on what is moral regardless of your religious or non religious upbringing.


Morality is separate from religion and is instead a byproduct of society's standards and beliefs except for the very core concept of morality at any given time.

 

[Gunz]

If you're brought up right, you'll be a good person. I think it's as simple as that...and I don't think religion has anything to do with it.

Sometimes I think clinging to ones faith makes one more biased against people of other faiths, imbues one with a sense of exclusivity and superiority.

I was raised Roman Catholic and even at a very young age was aware of the hypocrisy. Church couldn't make somebody who was a dick any less of a dick.

All I could think of in church was getting the fuck out.

 

[policemedic]

You need no organized religion or god to be moral and posses ethics.

Change my mind.

I agree, as I believe all three are separate things that can exist in the absence of each other. However, I also believe that each can have a synergistic effect on the others.

 

[GOTWA]

Religion. When I first joined the military some 10+ years ago as a young Infantryman, I somewhat believed in the idea of religion. Being 19 and still wet behind the ears, I looked for something to help guide my decision-making, to believe what I was doing was just and righteous. Then I deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 with 1ID. Our sister BN lost ~17 guys, some of which I knew, but I didn't know well. Nevertheless, it was hard. Then I lost two really good friends to a suicide-bomber; we use to play home run derby on the weekends at Ft. Hood. My idea of religion began to change...slowly. Not because of my belief in god, but my opinion on religion itself. That change was cemented when I lost my PL from 1ID to a Green on Blue while he was with 3rd Grp.

Regardless if I believe in a higher power or not, I cannot submit myself to such an idea based off what that "God" is for us. With so much death in the world, children dying of cancer, terrible and unfortunate accidents that take the lives of younger people undeserving, great friends lost in war; I can't submit to a God/idea that lets good people die. I suppose you can say I weigh more on the side of interventionism with regards to religion. If that is God's plan...I say that is a shitty plan and a leader I refuse to follow. Religion aside...

Ethics and morals. Ethics and morals are very difficult to explain and it really depends on where you stand:

• Virtue Ethics - Finding the middle ground between two extremes.
• Utilitarianism - The greatest good for the greatest number.
• Consequentialism - The ends justify the means.

So on and so forth...

It's midnight and you're driving down a dark road while it's pouring rain. You're the only car on the road until you come up along a car pulled off on the side with what appears to be car trouble. You haven't seen another car for miles, and cell service is spotty. Do you help? If yes, does it matter that you have a young child with you in the vehicle? So many different variables to determine ones decision. You either help the stranded individual get going again, or you take the protectionist approach and ensure your child's safety by passing them by. Both acceptable in my opinion. - no, "but if I had a gun..." because that's not the point.

Can we simply say ethics is doing the right thing for the right reason? Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't always mean doing the right thing.

When I switched over to another MOS, I had an E6 in the class that said something that will always stick with me, "I can compromise my morals to accomplish my mission, but I will never compromise my integrity." It's a very gray world out there.

 

[CQB]

An interesting observation of religion is that whatever path you follow, The Buddha, the Prophet Mohammad, John The Baptist, Jesus Christ, Confucius, Guru Nanak or Krishna it is very difficult to live up to the precepts of your chosen faith, try as you might.