Well its hard to say as I am not sure the types of questions were defining peoples morals or not. As I said before feelings to do with harm or fairness ect are not completely to do with morals.
Of course they are! Research has identified them as fundamental aspects of moral phenomena. That's presumably why this paper specifically selected those constructs. The paper itself highlights this:
In particular, we examined how well an influential taxonomy of moral dimensions, moral foundations theory [MFT (12–14)], can account for descriptive content, and whether everyday moral experiences highlight understudied dimensions of morality. ...
Building on MFT (14), we reliably classified moral events into five originally proposed core dimensions (Care/Harm, Fairness/Unfairness, Loyalty/Disloyalty, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation) as well as a newly proposed Liberty/Oppression dimension (17) and two additional categories derived from our data (Honesty/Dishonesty, Self-Discipline/Lack of Self-Discipline)
Even immoral people can have strong feelings about care and fairness and they may live immoral lives.
You keep missing the point of the prescriptive-descriptive distinction.
Plus how do we know the people doing the survey decided what morals were to begin with in a religious sense.
Research. Not religion, but research.
If you asked about things like sex and whether it was ok in certain situations it would define morals better than something like fairness which is something that even secular society has laws around. In other words what the poeple doing the survey regarded as morals may not be how Christians see morals.
So what? That's not the point of the study! How many times does this have to be repeated to you?
The study didn't examine different views on specific moral issues!
I understand their purpose and I have read the survey.
It doesn't seem like you do.
I am questioning how they did it. It just seems they have talked about some good qualities we all have and not specific enough morals that religious people such as Christians have. Non believers on here are saying that there is no difference in the morals of non religious and religious people. People on here are mentioning things like whether its ok to have assisted suicide or is homosexuality is OK or not. These are the issues that people are bring up from this survey. This is the way they have understood what the survey is saying whether it intended to do this or not. Thats because that is how people define their morals by issues such as these.
Not "no difference." See Figure 2, for example. The study did find that individuals differed on fundamental dimensions according to political ideology. As I understand it, these differences have been reported previously. Examining the
frequency of moral experiences, the study found:
Comparing religious and nonreligious participants, there was no discernible difference in the frequency of positive moral experience (both overall and by event; table S4). Thus, we did not find evidence for religious people committing moral acts more frequently than nonreligious people.
Again, it's important to bear in mind that the term "morality" is being used in a
descriptive sense. Whenever it comes to interpreting the results you seem to forget that point.
Like how, I dont think there's a lot of difference.
No difference between ISIS and the Anglican Church? Seriously? Come on, steve...
Plus I am mainly talking about the western understanding of religion as practiced mostly by the societies where these surveys would be done. If it did include many different religions then it would have to accommodate those difference as it would then add another dimension to the survey. It would then have to define the differences between those religions as well withing the overall difference of non religion and religious people. But I dont think there would be a lot of difference. Most religions agree on a lot of things like same sex, sexual immorality, abortion, marriage, affairs, underage sex, porn ect. There are some groups but I wouldn't call them religions but more sects or cults that allow different views on sex ect. But they are few and not exactly something that mainstream religion agrees with.
Mainstream religion doesn't agree with mainstream religion.
How do you mean. There isn't much you can be specific about. The survey mainly explains a lot of technical info about they ways they measured things.
Which you clearly ignored. Hence your complaint about them using previous research in order to define "moral experience" in terms of harm, fairness, loyalty, liberty, etc.
What and who are they. If you mean some weird sect well tech there are religious cults that do this but we all know they are wrong and taking advantage of something. This has nothing to do with morals.
Of course it does! They don't share your morals. It has everything to do with it!
And this is what I mean but how the survey hasn't really defined what morals are. Whos version have they used.
For the fourth or fifth time,
there's a distinction between descriptive and perspective uses of the word "moral."
But I would like to know which religions you are talking about that think porn is OK as a moral as thats news to me.
Someone else has already posted information relevant to this. The fact that you seem wholly unaware of the existence of Christians who don't share your moral outlook is concerning, however.
Well as far as I understand it there is a difference between religious people and non religious peoples morals. This survey hasn't really been clear on what morals are. Harm and fairness to me are not necessarily defining morals but are more like good traits that we all can have even immoral people. The marfia want a fair share of things and will distribute their proceeds from crime out fairly because they care about the family. They dont want harm to come to their own but will kill anyone who harms their friends ect. Thats all subjective and doesn't really define morals.
Again, they selected those constructs
from research. What did you expect them to use instead?
I already have the paper in PFD format.
I would recommend reading some of the papers they cited.
At the end of the day I can get surveys that are showing contradictory results and thats why I question it.
No, you can't, because as far as I'm aware this is the only study that has examined these questions using a naturalistic methodology.
If there is no difference with morals between non religious and religious people then whey do we have all the arguments about how religious people are always trying to push their morals onto others. What do we have such a divide between the churches stand on many issues and secular society. We all know its there and see it all the time.
For the last time, the study did NOT examine
specific moral systems or people's moral views on
specific issues! It examined moral phenomena at the level of everyday lived experience using a theoretical framework developed by previous research. No one is claiming that there are "no differences" between people in their moral views on ethically important issues! That's not what this study is about! You have the PDF, you claimed to have read the study, and yet this point continues to allude you.