Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You’re not capable of knowing what’s moral or not unless you know God is watching…?... but who gets to define what either a "moral" or an "immoral" person is? Without an absolute set of values for morality, it's kind of difficult to discern if and when another person is objectively being fully moral or not.
Are you only capable of making moral choices if you have a “rule book” to follow?But what determines that it is a moral choice if there is no "rule book"?
I’m sure Muslims will be excited to know that people think they have a great tool to decide morality, right on up there with Christians and Jews.Im just saying religious people have a great tool to help with this, especially monotheists - I think.
I do wonder if the tool really gets used tho, given publicly visible behaviors.
You’re not capable of knowing what’s moral or not unless you know God is watching…?
Very likely, but let's not make the tyro mistake of confusing legal with moral.I am wondering if you would try to convince representatives or voters, via reason, that your view should be upheld.
Ok, but what I’m pointing out if you’re capable of deciding basic ethics and morality intrinsically, why wouldn’t one assume an atheist can do the same? Religion crafts specific directives for specific religious goals, but without those I’m sure you could ascertain right from wrong and act accordingly.Tropical, if you've studied Ethics and Epistemology, along with your Theology and Psychology, you wouldn't be asking this question ...
... and I'm trying to say this to you in a nice way 'cuz I generally like you.
Ok, but what I’m pointing out if you’re capable of deciding basic ethics and morality intrinsically, why wouldn’t one assume an atheist can do the same? Religion crafts specific directives for specific religious goals, but without those I’m sure you could ascertain right from wrong and act accordingly.
We all know randomly punching people in the face is wrong. Religion’s function is to say “and because we know punching random people in the face is wrong, it is not what a faithful person does, and to be faithful yields you these rewards.”
It’s the same discernment that has you reading the Bible and discarding things that, despite being outlined as appropriate religiously speaking, are not how one conducts themselves in a moral and free society.
I’m not sure why you sense that as I didn’t say or imply any of what you’ve stated above.I'm sensing a rather simple, binary structure in your personal conception of Ethics. Ethics, and the actions that spring from our moral deliberations, can't simply be pared down to a decision about whether or not any of us will hurt another person or instead be altruistic.
I think the issue is you’re treating morality and ethics guided by religion as a concrete, provable positive and thus a more refined or better form of ethics and morals than those who don’t claim a faith. To be a moral person is one thing, to be a moral Christian is another. An atheist is totally capable of the former and not interested in achieving the latter as it’s irrelevant.I've already said earlier in this thread that I think atheist have morals. However, this isn't to also say that they have the capacity to be as fully moral as they could be. Moreover, it's not enough to cite morality as merely a matter of how one comports himself within a free society.
There are many, many more nuances to Ethics and our individual moral choices than what pertain to the social context of a "free society," a whole lot more............................................... Read any academic and scholarly, secular source/book on Ethics alone and you'll see what I'm saying is true.
I’m not sure why you sense that as I didn’t say or imply any of what you’ve stated above.
I think the issue is you’re treating morality and ethics guided by religion as a concrete, provable positive and thus a more refined or better form of ethics and morals than those who don’t claim a faith. To be a moral person is one thing, to be a moral Christian is another. An atheist is totally capable of the former and not interested in achieving the latter as it’s irrelevant.
An irreligious morality is one which dismisses all transcendent authority with one's own authority. I don't see much sense in debating with such persons as there is no appeal to an authority that both respect. The debate usually ends in the retort from the atheist, "Well, that may be true for you but not for me".How about we talk about a non religious source of morality? Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret). But what golden rule do you use? something like categorical imperative? utilitarianism? How do you decide what laws are needed?
Ugh, that would be truth relativism. No thanks.The debate usually ends in the retort from the atheist, "Well, that may be true for you but not for me".
Doesn't change the truth of my claim: w/o a transcendent authority to which both accept, the debate will be fruitless.Ugh, that would be truth relativism. No thanks.
Christianity has many different religions. Two Christians from the same tradition with a well-defined moral code on the issue at hand would not have such a problem.But that could be just as well spoken between two Christians who disagree on some moral issue.
Many Catholics disagree on matters on which the Church has a well-defined position.Christianity has many different religions. Two Christians from the same tradition with a well-defined moral code on the issue at hand would not have such a problem.
Do we? If so it is because of empathy and something like the categorical imperative as our "rule book".We all know randomly punching people in the face is wrong.
….because they don’t know what the Church teaches and are poorly catechizedAnd those Catholic would lose the debate.
I have a sincere question for you, only because I’m truly curious.You’re not capable of knowing what’s moral or not unless you know God is watching…?
Sounds great to me!The golden rule is...The Golden Rule. If you generally stick with 'Do unto others etc' then that'll cover most situations. The categorical imperative is just a more formal way of expressing it. In most cases we all generally take a utilitarian approach, but that can lead to less than ideal decisions if you stick to it rigidly.
On the other side of the coin, something can only be immoral if it causes harm.
Good summary and it seems that both are at play. On a larger scale there are some relative norms on a more personal scale there are subjective norms.Truth relativism is the claim that knowledge, truth and morality exist in relation to culture or society and that there are no universal truths.
Truth subjectivism is the claim that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.
It is a "tyro" mistake to think they are separable.Very likely, but let's not make the tyro mistake of confusing legal with moral.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?