Do you think...

[Simon_Templar]

Well really I suppose the answer to this question depends upon how you define the words morals and religion. The fact is that most people in the world are religious, by the actual meaning of the word, wether they will admit it to themselves or not. A person does not have to believe in God to be religious.

Religion is best defined as a set of beliefs held with ardor and faith. The only people who really aren't religious are those who don't have any opinion on the most important issues of life.
Now, morality could be defined in very similar terms, if your morality is a set of beliefs you hold about how it is right to behave, that very much can be defined as a religion.

Having said that, if what you meant to ask was do you have to believe in God, or a god, to have morality, then no certainly not. Morality is just a code of beliefs about right and wrong. This has always raised a question for me however. I've talked to alot of atheists and humanists who had their codes of morality and ethics, the problem is that they never really have a reason to have morality. Sure you can have morality without God, (or a transcendant entity) but why would you?
You can make all your arguments about morality being socially necessary but really that is irrelevant on an individual level.. your assuming that an individual aught to care about the good of the whole society, but why? Basicly thats like saying people should be moral because its moral to be moral.

This discussion is evidence of the fact that really, everyone (with the possible exception of a few psychopaths) innately knows that there is a moral code that we are supposed to live by, that exists outside of us. People keep trying to find ways to preserve this moral code, because it is absolutely necessary to society (as some have rightly pointed out) without acknoledging that if the code exists, someone or something which trancends us must be behind it. The end result is always a bunch of logicaly self destructive philosophies.

 

[jayem]

Sure you can have morality without God, (or a transcendant entity) but why would you?
You can make all your arguments about morality being socially necessary but really that is irrelevant on an individual level.. your assuming that an individual aught to care about the good of the whole society, but why?

The simple and obvious reason is for your own self interest. I think the old proverb has some truth: what goes around, comes around. If you consistently act in ways that are harmful to others, there is a very significant risk that you will eventually come to grief yourself. And I don't mean just facing legal sanctions. Those who act badly towards their fellows, who lie, or cheat, or disregard others' interests or feelings are quite likely to be shunned, rejected, and abandoned in their own time of need. It's just part of the social contract--for your own self interest, you refrain doing things that you would not want others to do. Of course, it's not perfect. Some people act immorally and seem to prosper. But short-sighted and foolishly risky, in my opinion.

And is this any different from any other moral system? Why would you act morally just because some transcendant diety tells you so? Ultimately, it's because you want to avoid the consequences of disobedience. Again, you're really acting in your own self-interest.

The interesting question is: does a moral system backed by divine command produce better results than morals based on a rational understanding of human behavior and history? In my opinion it does not, but I don't think there is yet any decisive answer.

 

[Simon_Templar]

The simple and obvious reason is for your own self interest. I think the old proverb has some truth: what goes around, comes around. If you consistently act in ways that are harmful to others, there is a very significant risk that you will eventually come to grief yourself. And I don't mean just facing legal sanctions. Those who act badly towards their fellows, who lie, or cheat, or disregard others' interests or feelings are quite likely to be shunned, rejected, and abandoned in their own time of need.

So in this case, your moral code is based on pragmatism, you believe the best way to get what you want is by working with others. You believe this, as you later point out because you think that there is truth in the principle that what goes around comes around (which at least has shades of suggesting that society works on a transcendant principle of justice, almost karma like). You do admit that some people who don't follow this principle seem to prosper. Being a student of history, I can say pretty objectively that often times it is those who act without ethics and without moral regard for their fellow man who prosper the most. If you look at a catalogue of leaders, wealthy, and otherwise influential persons through out history, many more of them, you will find, are reprehensible people than are good moral people.

Personaly I do believe in a principle of justice, that people get what they have earned, but the only reason I believe that is because I believe there is a transcendant judge. I think most people believe things like "what comes around goes around" primarily either because they believe there is a transcendant force which enforces the principle, or because they don't pay much attention to the way things work in society.

And is this any different from any other moral system? Why would you act morally just because some transcendant diety tells you so? Ultimately, it's because you want to avoid the consequences of disobedience. Again, you're really acting in your own self-interest.

I don't agree with this idea at all. I am presented with this quite frequently as though it were an undeniable truth. The fact is that it is an arrogant assumption which is really utterly unprovable. I don't mean that you are arrogant necessarily for making it because many people accept this as simple fact without realizing the inherent arrogance of it.
This idea is originaly born out of psychology going back to the days of Freud and the like. There are a number of different variations on it, Freud's for example was twisted towards the sexual side, but the basic assumption is that no one ever does anything unless it is in their self interest to do it. The end result is the statement above which is essentially a denial of all human virtue. No one ever does anything for noble reasons, its all just self interest. The reason this is supremely arrogant is that it assumes that it knows everyone and their own motivations better than they do. If you say this you are basicly calling everyone who thinks that that they have done something selfless either a liar, or self deluded.
The kicker is that this idea really has no more logical or reasonable basis than believing that all jewish people are greedy and stingy because either you are, or you have experienced some that are, or believing that all hispanics are lazy either because you are, or because you have seen some who are. This idea is essentially a racial stereotype of the entire human race.

I don't mean in the above comments to get confrontational towards you, or sound angry towards you, because I'm not I don't know enough about you for that yet but I really hate that idea and I speak passionately against it.


In answer to your final question about which type of moral system works better, one with a transendant authority, or one without. I would have to say that the one with the transendant authority works better because there has never been in history an instance in which the other has lasted more than a few decades before colapsing into chaos, disorder, and then totalitarianism.

It is my opinion that belief in a transendant absolute authority is necessary for human freedom to exist. Society requires order, its not a question of society colapsing or disappearing, we are social creatures, society will always exist, and it requires order. No society has ever, or will ever allow chaos to reign for more than a very small time without attempts to bring order. Order can only be provided from two possible sources. One is a transendant authority which has the right to tell people how to behave, the other is a non transcendant power (ie government of some sort) which has the ability to tell people how to behave and then force them to obey.
This is why william penn said "people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." this is true.

 

[Neo-Paladin]

Herein I must agree with Simon_Templar:

If you purchase a new car, then for me to take it from you by force is wrong (not just by the laws of man, which may or may not come into play here) because you would say that thievery is something that one "ought not" do. You might implore me to obey personal property laws, or good graces, or respect, or some other idea that you think might sway my actions, but you are in fact appealing, in the end, that I obey an "Ought" (I ought not steal, I ought to obey the law, I ought to show you respect, etc.). You are making an call to an authority, which is not dependant on time/place/culture/etc. and is above my personal preferences. You are stating that I need to obey this higher absolute authority regardless of my personal preferences. In doing so you acknowledge that a Higher Absolute Standard of Truth does, in fact, exist.

Someone may claim that "Certain actions, like rape and murder, are obviously wrong". However, the moment someone makes the statement that some action is "plainly evil" or "obviously wrong" then they are, in fact, making an appeal to a higher standard of behavior that does *not* depend on someone's subjective reasoning, personal perspective, or anything outside of an absolute standard. If you want to define anything as evil, then you must admit to the existence of an absolute standard by which to evaluate the action(s) in question. Only those actions which do not comply to this standard can be deemed to be evil, and every action that does not conform *must* be defined as evil. The standard must be absolute or it is open to subjective alteration by people who claim "a special exception" or a "unique situation" which justifies their non-compliant actions. They may claim that the ends justify the means, and thus any action taken for "a good purpose" or with a "commendable intention" is acceptable. If the purpose or intention are justifications for actions which might otherwise be called evil, then it may be acceptable for someone to violently kill another person based solely on race, gender, faith, etc. because "those kinds of people are all ignorant trouble-makers" and they "had it coming to them". The killer could claim that their actions were good because they were trying to make the world a better place; they could claim that what they did was "for a good cause" and thus deny that the killings was not in compliance with the standard of good. If a "good intention" is all that is necessary, then we must define what qualifies as a good intention, and we are left in the position of accepting that only the individual can know and truly judge his/her intentions, and so we have a subjective standard that does not apply to everyone, but only to those who choose to accept it, and so nothing someone does is wrong or evil unless they want to claim that it was, and even then no one else can judge them for their (admittedly evil) actions. In order for the standard to apply to everyone in all situations it must be absolute.

If you admit to an absolute standard, and you want to claim that it applies to everyone - wether they want to follow it or not - then you have to make the claim that the standard derives from a source outside the fluid mores of society or culture or personal preference. In effect you have to claim that the absolute standard originates from a higher source. If this standard does not originate from a higher source, then it is subject to personal or cultural amendment, alterations, and re-interpretations - and thus does not apply to everyone but only those who chose to accept it and even then only in the way that they choose to accept it - so it is no longer absolute nor is it a standard.

The knowledge of the Absolute Standard of Behavior which derives from a Higher Source could be defined as Truth, in that it accurately defines/reflects/identifies what that standard is. Given that, the question is not the discovery of "your truth" or "my truth" but of "THE TRUTH" which is to say, defining what that Absolute Standard IS and what it demands of us for compliance. This "enigmatic" question is most easily answered by those who do not hold a preconceived idea that NO ABSOLUTE CAN EXIST prior to beginning the search for one. (It is foolish to search for what one already believes does not exist or can never be known). The simplest answer is to merely look at what the "Ought"s tell us to do or not to do. We ought not Steal, Murder, Mistreat others. We ought to respect others, be polite, honest, honorable, hard-working, etc. In short...we "ought" to practice those things which are labeled "Virtues" and ought NOT practice those things which are labeled "Vices". The actions and/or characteristics which confirm to the absolute standard could be defined as Virtues.

It is interesting to note that a review of the major religions/faiths/theological perspectives across the world shows that in all of these religions the same things are defined as Virtues (Honor, Honesty, Patience, Kindness, etc.) and in all of them the same things are defined as Vices (Murder, Theft, etc.) . There is no religion that I have found where "vices" are taught as "virtues" and "virtues" as "vices" (ie. No religion teaches that Honor is bad and Murder is good). So the question becomes a matter of determining which religion provides the most effective methodology for developing/encouraging the Virtues and for discouraging/eliminating the Vices.

Taken in this context, a methodology for developing Virtuous characteristics in ones life (aka. "religion") would be a requisite for retaining morality - which is essentially acting in accordance with Virtuous characteristics - in a world where there is a tenancy/draw toward immorality (actions that stem from or encourage the development of Vices).

If you hold that the world is "a nasty wicked place full of immorality and vice, a cesspool trying to drown the unwary in viscous evil" or something like that...then religion is essential -as a defense against a hostile world of vice- for someone to be moral (act with/from virtue).

 

[Spike~]

If you need fear of God to make you a good person, then your "morality" is only a facade.

 

[nadroj1985]

I don't agree with this idea at all. I am presented with this quite frequently as though it were an undeniable truth. The fact is that it is an arrogant assumption which is really utterly unprovable. I don't mean that you are arrogant necessarily for making it because many people accept this as simple fact without realizing the inherent arrogance of it.
This idea is originaly born out of psychology going back to the days of Freud and the like. There are a number of different variations on it, Freud's for example was twisted towards the sexual side, but the basic assumption is that no one ever does anything unless it is in their self interest to do it. The end result is the statement above which is essentially a denial of all human virtue. No one ever does anything for noble reasons, its all just self interest. The reason this is supremely arrogant is that it assumes that it knows everyone and their own motivations better than they do. If you say this you are basicly calling everyone who thinks that that they have done something selfless either a liar, or self deluded.
The kicker is that this idea really has no more logical or reasonable basis than believing that all jewish people are greedy and stingy because either you are, or you have experienced some that are, or believing that all hispanics are lazy either because you are, or because you have seen some who are. This idea is essentially a racial stereotype of the entire human race.

You haven't given any evidence to refute the claim, though. Why do you think perfectly selfless deeds are possible?

 

[Neo-Paladin]

If you need fear of God to make you a good person, then your "morality" is only a facade.

We obey the speedlimit because we fear the troopers (watch how people slow down on the highway when a trooper is on the road). So then is our "lawful" behavior a facade? If someone angers or enrages you in public do you "beat them down" like you feel they deserve? If not, is it because you are afraid of what others may think? Fear of legal reprisials? Are we really uncivilized barbarians loosely held by the shackles of fear beneath a thin veneer of civility? In short, claiming that fear of reprisials invalidates the action is to demand an impossible burden for *any* action to be valid as "good" (or evil for that matter) since we must discover the "true motive" behind the action (which only the actor can know..and then only incompletely -for we often lie to ourselves as well as others). With no clear basis allowed for defining the moral character or quality of any action - every action is permissible. See my previous post for moe detailed discussion on this matter.

In regards to the matter of "Selfless actions". The current standard seems to be set impossibly high. In the above example of someone mistreating/enraging you in public - where you did not assault them (physically or verbally) If your reason for restraint was anything short of "because they are a valid human being with a discenting opinion to my own who is acting out of frustration at a situation they feel they cannot control" (or some other "intellectual" self-controled view) then your restraint would be currently defined as a facade - since it is not motivated by an altruistic purity of intention/action (ala Immanuel Kant).

I do not mean to sound aggressive or confrontational on the matter. I am curious, however, if someone can really believe that any sane individual ever does anything execept that which they believe is in their own best interests? If so, can you name one such action? An action where the actor does not believe that his/her action is rewarded somehow or is in their own best interest?

If someone did manage to live a life full of altruistically pure selfless acts, they would be publically vilified for their lack of selfless acts (since nobody would know about the person's selfless acts - lest the actor be given recognition or rewards).

In short, you cannot win this one. If you can name a person who made a selfless act they've garnered reward/recongition for the action and so its no longer "alturistically pure" but could be motivated by a desire for the rewards (which they have obviously obtained - since you called their acts selfless). But unless you can name one, you cannot prove it is possible to engage in a selfless act. Only the individual actor can know...and if that knowledge provides any "warm feeling" or satisfaction - again, they've gained a reward which could be the motive behind the action...so again no selfless act occured. For a further study on this (as I feel my presentation was rather poor) read Immanual Kant.