Morals v. Religion

[Narnian]

There is no universally applicable set of moral standards by which to judge people. What repulses one person might be perfectly okay to another.

Then how can anybody be held liable for any crime? How can you define crime? By your definition any moral standard is relative and as such canot have any real authority.

[Mjolnir]

That's why there is a set of laws agreed upon by the community. You commit a crime once you go against those laws and, therefore, against the agreed upon morality of the community. That's also why laws differ from area to area, because the communities agree that differant moral codes, and thus laws, apply to those areas.

- Mjolnir

[Narnian]

That's why there is a set of laws agreed upon by the community. You commit a crime once you go against those laws and, therefore, against the agreed upon morality of the community. That's also why laws differ from area to area, because the communities agree that differant moral codes, and thus laws, apply to those areas.

Why do the community laws have more authority than my own standards?

[Mjolnir]

Because you agree to them by living there. If you don't agree with them, you can either move or try and change them, which ever is better for you and the community in the long run. It is the people that make the laws, via their representivies in governemnet (or taht's how it should be) so they can change the laws if the community feels it would be better to do so.

You can always live out on your own somewhere and not have to worry about having community laws impeed your moral judgement. But as soon as you decide to interact with a group of people, your morals become just a part of the whole, rather than the ruling guidelines. However, since most of us already live in areas who's laws mirror, for the most part, our own moral compass, it doesn't become an issue too often.

Basically, the laws of a community, at least in this country, are designed to allow personal freedoms as long as they don't impinge (sp?) on the rights of others. If you think it's morally OK to murder someone you don't like, obviously you're going to have a hard time fitting into any community of people. Hence, the laws over rule your own moral code. Now, if enough people felt the way you do, then you could try and get the law changed.

- Mjolnir

[Narnian]

Because you agree to them by living there. If you don't agree with them, you can either move or try and change them, which ever is better for you and the community in the long run. It is the people that make the laws, via their representivies in governemnet (or taht's how it should be) so they can change the laws if the community feels it would be better to do so.

You can always live out on your own somewhere and not have to worry about having community laws impeed your moral judgement. But as soon as you decide to interact with a group of people, your morals become just a part of the whole, rather than the ruling guidelines. However, since most of us already live in areas who's laws mirror, for the most part, our own moral compass, it doesn't become an issue too often.

Basically, the laws of a community, at least in this country, are designed to allow personal freedoms as long as they don't impinge (sp?) on the rights of others. If you think it's morally OK to murder someone you don't like, obviously you're going to have a hard time fitting into any community of people. Hence, the laws over rule your own moral code. Now, if enough people felt the way you do, then you could try and get the law changed.

You are simply stating how you want things to work - not why that arrangement has any moral authority over any other. Basically might makes right whether it be one man or a majority?

[TMLutas]

This has been on my mind for quite a while now: Are morals and religion inseperable, or are they perfectly capable of existing independantly of one another?

Moral beliefs are either internally generated or externally generated. The externally generated ones are called religion. Now religion is hard, often uncomfortable, but has the advantage of being sustainable. Internally generated morality simply is not. Morality without religion cannot be reliably transmitted across the generations in large populations of human beings. Either you end up adopting some sort of religion to aid in transmission (worship of the law giver/guru is most common by my guess) or the transmission peters out (see USSR morality for an example).

You can live an ok, moral life on the fumes of your parents religion. I don't think that will last more than 2 or 3 generations, though.

[TMLutas]

All humanity shares a certain basic set of morals. We all know some things are wrong, though we all try to invent exceptions to the rules to fit our own desires. That we make up reasons why we commit certain acts is evidence that we know we should not have.

Where did this universal human moral template originate? I personally believe God coded it into us along with smiling when we are happy and crying when we are sad, but you are perfectly free to dismiss that as "religion".

There is no universal set of morals. Name a moral commandment and I'll point to some group that doesn't follow it. Everything from murder to rape to pedophilia to theft to bearing false witness, nothing is universal. The stuff that is self-destructive tends to become marginal, die out over time. That doesn't mean that somebody didn't make a good go at it.

[EdBecerra]

There is no universally applicable set of moral standards by which to judge people. What repulses one person might be perfectly okay to another.

Then how can anybody be held liable for any crime? How can you define crime? By your definition any moral standard is relative and as such canot have any real authority.

That's really rather simple, albeit hard to put into words, Narn.

Christopher Stasheff, a sci-fi author who's also a devout Christian, put it best in one of his "Warlock" books. A young child asks much the same question of the faithful family retainer, a slightly epileptic robot that's centuries old, and gets the following answer, slightly paraphrased.

"Thus, in answer to your question, disobedience is not done at anyone's whim, but at the considered, carefully weighed opinions of a group of responsible individuals, acting upon thorough evidence and elaborate validation, in accordance with well-established principles."
-- Fess the Robot, The Warlock's Companion, by Christopher Stasheff.

To a large extent, TIME establishes what is moral and what is not, by the simple method of "Does it function well in the long run?", with the most basic principle being "Do you want to be treated like this? No? Then don't treat other people that way."

The Golden Rule. Everything else is just variations on that theme.

[Maxgoof]

What is right is not always legal.

What is legal is not always right.

[Narnian]

To a large extent, TIME establishes what is moral and what is not, by the simple method of "Does it function well in the long run?", with the most basic principle being "Do you want to be treated like this? No? Then don't treat other people that way."

The Golden Rule. Everything else is just variations on that theme.

The problem is the "Golden Rule" doesn't stop people from doing bad things. Again, what gives TIME or the "Golden Rule" authority? Nobody is answering that question. Essentially you are agruing for a form of Utilitarianism - if it works, its right. Then you have to ask who decides what "works" is.

“If there is no God, everything is permitted"
Ivan Karamazov speaking in "The Brother Karamazov"

[Gengar003]

People choose to give a source of morals authority. Just as with the morals, the source can differ. One person might not recognize "God" as an acceptable source of morals, another might. Another might accept the "morals" imposed on them by their government, another might not. I believe that the choice of what to accept as valid sources of morality is in part influenced by one's own morals, and by self-interest. Simply, if abiding by a set of moral standards, or taking moral advice from a certain authority pleases, in some way, a person, they'll accept those morals or that source, eventually giving the most import to whichever pleases them the most.

People choose to give some sources of morality more weight than others. People are more likely to adopt the moral standards of the law or an organized religion than the ravings of a drunk hobo. Why? They see better things coming as a result of following the law or their religion than the drunkard. To some people, though, the drunk hobo's ravings might offer more satisfaction, so they follow them.

Some people will see a religion, and decide that they like what it promises if they abide by its moral code, so they give it more weight than other sources. Other people may decide that in the long run, some other source of morality will do them best, and follow that source.

"Time," or a form of utilarianism, as mentioned, and the "golden rule" have more moral authority than other sources because more people subscribe to them. Not only are they more widespread, universal beliefs, but, should it come down to "might making right," they've got more might behind them.

The more people whose behavior is shaped by a source of morality, the more authority that source will have. Each person will decide which moral authority to give the most weight to based on which source will be the best for them. And for each person, the critera for what will be "best" is different.

There is no absolute set of morals. There is no absolute source of morality, and there is no single set of critera that people use to determine their morals and moral authorities. Each person has a different idea of what is "best" for them to do, and as such will translate that into different moral codes and different sources of morality.

Tying into the original topic, Morals and Religion are "inseperable" only if one decides that they are.

[Capnregex]

Actions have consequences,
Thoughts lead to Action,
therefore
Thoughts have consequences.

Gravity Works.

Does our opinion about gravity change it's effects?

Can I make myself taller simply by believing that I am taller?

Can I fly simply because I think I can?

We cannot change Natural Laws simply by changing our beliefs.
Morals are ultimately based on natural laws.
The more accurately a belief reflects what is real, or the Natural Law, the more true that religious belief is.

Myself, I believe that the reason that Christ and His Father are God is because they follows the Natural Laws.

Their instructions to us are to help us follow those natural laws as well, because when we ignore the natural laws, we endanger ourselves.

So, who decides what is right? Nobody.. What is right is right because it is.
We can see the effects of it being right all around us, thus we can discover it being right for ourselves.
We are however, left to discover it for ourselves.

[Calbeck]

You are simply stating how you want things to work - not why that arrangement has any moral authority over any other. Basically might makes right whether it be one man or a majority?

Not at all. Might has nothing to do with moral authority. Moral authority comes from collective agreement. If you choose to take advantage of the benefits of a given society, then you are tacitly agreeing to take responsibility for anything that society requires of you. It is, for example, entirely legal to renounce your citizenship and refuse to become a citizen of any nation of the world.

You can go find some unclaimed spot of land somewhere, or live nautically off the seven-mile limit (think Sealand for example), and declare whatever government, laws, or social contract you wish. Anyone choosing to join you will have to follow your rules or leave --- or, of course, they could try to overthrow your rule, whereby they risk whatever punishment you see fit to inflict if they fail.

[Gengar003]

You can go find some unclaimed spot of land somewhere, or live nautically off the seven-mile limit (think Sealand for example), and declare whatever government, laws, or social contract you wish. Anyone choosing to join you will have to follow your rules or leave --- or, of course, they could try to overthrow your rule, whereby they risk whatever punishment you see fit to inflict if they fail.

That is basically "might makes right." Ditto for the "collective agreement" -- the agreement has weight/power because people will stand by those moral beliefs. If some community in a state of "collective agreement" about their morality, when faced with a person in their midst doing things they considered "immoral," the community could not say that they held whatever moral beliefs were being violated if they did not do anything.

The government has laws prohibiting and outlining punishments for killing people. If someone killed someone else, but the government did nothing, is that really a law? No, the government enforces its laws. And most (if not all) private citizens, on their own, do not have the resources, tools, will, etc, to overthrow the government. They'd have to go against the army, the police, and a significant amount of public opinion. Far, far more people are in "collective agreement" with the government's morality than with the murderer, so the murdere has to abide by the government's imposed morality. (Note that by "government morality" I do not literally mean morals sanctioned by the government a la state-sanctioned religion, but rather the 'killing people is bad, so is robbing/raping/etc' kind of laws passed that delve into the realm of morality). So yes, at the most base level, might does make right. I'm not saying it should be like that, I'm saying that's how it is.

Individuals can and usually do hold whatever moral beliefs they believe are best for them, whatever their personal best may be.

@Capnregex: To use your example, if some person determined that it was in their best interest to not believe in gravity, despite its obvious effect, true, that would not cause it to stop working, but it does not render their moral position absolutely wrong. It will only be wrong to those who do believe in gravity. Because gravity is a natural phenomenon, though, and not an issue of morality, we can actually say, yes, they're wrong. Look at gravity working, and they will be wrong.

Morals, however, are subjective to each person, who has different moral requirements based on whatever critera they determine to be best for them. Someone may decide that their "best" course of action is to help the less fortunate, and devote their life to it, another may decide to become a serial killer.

Society can say the serial killer is wrong and the altruist is right. (I hope) most of us can say the same. To each person, however, their own set of morals is still 'right.' On a purely individual level, none of us have any more moral authority than any other with respect to ourselves -- You are not qualified to determine what's morally 'right' or 'wrong' for me, and I can't tell you what's the best moral course of action for you.

You state that you believe morals are based upon 'Natural Laws.' I believe they are based on an individual's self-interest. (Which doesn't always have to be the traditional, selfish image of 'self-interest,' but rather whatever that person determines they'd like to do the most.)

'Natural Laws,' a la Gravity, Human Beings Cannot Fly under their own power, are things that CAN be said to be either right or wrong. Gravity will exist whether you want it to or not, and you will not be able to fly by flapping your arms no matter how much you want to. These are facts of nature... not morals. Morals are beliefs unique to each person, and every person views others' code of morals through their own, making it imposible for us to reach an objective or absolute moral viewpoint.

[Narnian]

Not at all. Might has nothing to do with moral authority. Moral authority comes from collective agreement. If you choose to take advantage of the benefits of a given society, then you are tacitly agreeing to take responsibility for anything that society requires of you. It is, for example, entirely legal to renounce your citizenship and refuse to become a citizen of any nation of the world.

You can go find some unclaimed spot of land somewhere, or live nautically off the seven-mile limit (think Sealand for example), and declare whatever government, laws, or social contract you wish. Anyone choosing to join you will have to follow your rules or leave --- or, of course, they could try to overthrow your rule, whereby they risk whatever punishment you see fit to inflict if they fail.

On what do you base the assertion that "Moral authority comes from collective agreement"? Are morals just majority opinion then?

[Kerry Skydancer]

In practice, that's exactly right. The morality of a culture depends on its collective agreement to behave in conformity with a set of rules.

The -origin- of those rules may be legislative, religion-based, philosophy-based, or simply pragmatism that has grown up over the years as to what works. The US and the Roman Empire are a combination of the first two; Islamic culture is the 2nd; ancient China was the third; many tribal cultures are the last.

[Calbeck]

Anyone choosing to join you will have to follow your rules or leave --- or, of course, they could try to overthrow your rule, whereby they risk whatever punishment you see fit to inflict if they fail.

That is basically "might makes right."[/quote]

No, it is "you joined me for the benefits you wanted, now you have to follow the rules that make those benefits possible". Might does not MAKE right, and in most cases might is not required for the right thing to be done.

Ditto for the "collective agreement" -- the agreement has weight/power because people will stand by those moral beliefs. If some community in a state of "collective agreement" about their morality, when faced with a person in their midst doing things they considered "immoral," the community could not say that they held whatever moral beliefs were being violated if they did not do anything.

Incorrect. A violation is a violation regardless of whether or not any steps are taken to correct it. And your argument lacks the specificity needed to pass a logic test. "Do anything", for example, can include passive forms of punishment just as readily as acts of force.

The government has laws prohibiting and outlining punishments for killing people. If someone killed someone else, but the government did nothing, is that really a law?

Yes, it is. A law's validity does not rely on whether or not you can get away with a crime, or with whether or not society chooses to pardon your crime under any given set of circumstances (such as evading capture until the law of statutes runs out).

[Narnian]

In practice, that's exactly right. The morality of a culture depends on its collective agreement to behave in conformity with a set of rules.

The -origin- of those rules may be legislative, religion-based, philosophy-based, or simply pragmatism that has grown up over the years as to what works. The US and the Roman Empire are a combination of the first two; Islamic culture is the 2nd; ancient China was the third; many tribal cultures are the last.

So if a society says it is OK to kill children who do not measure up to the societies standards (e.g. they are crippled in some fashion menatally or physically, or maybe they have red hair) then that is a valid moral position since a majority of the society agrees to it?

[Narnian]

No, it is "you joined me for the benefits you wanted, now you have to follow the rules that make those benefits possible". Might does not MAKE right, and in most cases might is not required for the right thing to be done.

How many people out there joined a society to obtain its benefits? I don't see many hands up because we are born into the societies we live in, choice is not involved. Even later there are not many opportunities to change (language, $, etc.). It is not something that is easily done.

As fo opting out - just try it and see how soon the IRS, FBI or some other federal agency tracks you down.

Note: Edited to correct quote.

[Capnregex]

There are natural laws that govern human interaction the same way there are laws that govern physics.

If you base your interactions on lies and deception, you are going to have negative consequences, regardless of if you believe lying is wrong or not.

Stealing will also bring about negative consequences, as does murder, rape, and other vile practices.

No amount of voting is going to change that. The natural consequences are going to be there regardless of if it is against the governmental law or not.

Therefore, Morals are not subjective... Rather they are absolute, and the question is how well our actions fit the natural law.

Just because "everyone is doing it" does not make it right.

Thoughts and Actions have consequences. You can choose your thoughts and actions, but the consequences for those thoughts and actions you don't get to choose. So, if you want specific results, you do what it takes to get those results.

If you want to be trusted, don't lie.