Morality

[Jazzy]

For many, it seems like an obvious fact that morality must come from a higher power. This stems from the belief that humans are too imperfect to define morality on their own. Even mostly good people do bad things from time to time, so how can we trust ourselves to be the creators and judges of morality? Moreover, if morals don’t come from an authority like a God or gods, then they are subject to debate. This is a big problem for those who believe that morals should be universal and unchanging.

Yet, many would point to real-world evidence that debunks these ideas. Research shows that non-religious people tend to behave just as morally as religious people, as both groups make similar moral choices. The difference is that nonreligious people often see morality as a practical matter rather than a divine one. For example, not killing or stealing is a practical way of making society more stable and easier to live in. Plus, many people have a natural sense that such acts are wrong. Quite simply, they don’t do bad things because they would feel bad about it.

Do you think that morality can exist without religion? (Why/Why Not)

 

[tango]

I don't see why morality can't exist without religion. We can all adopt our own moral standards, and accept a legal framework that imposes a minimum standard upon everyone in that society. We can accept that killing other people is generally wrong (with arguable exceptions for self-defence etc). We can also accept that our views on things like marital fidelity will determine how we live but not how others live - the fact I choose not to cheat on my wife doesn't obligate anyone else to do the same, nor does it prohibit another couple from having an "open marriage", for example.

People who believe in some kind of deity/ies might argue that the innate sense that some things are wrong stem from the influence of their deity/ies, while others would argue it's just common sense or the universe's divine spark or whatever else. Either way, there's some merit in the argument that a basic moral framework is as much a practical matter as a religious matter.

 

[Josiah]

Do you think that morality can exist without religion? (Why/Why Not)

Yes. Indeed, I think you could make a case that in some ways, outward and observable morality can be even greater in secular than in religious societies (think Japan and Sweden). Perhaps.

The difference, IMO, is that in godless societies, morality is simply a matter of majority opinion at the time. It's entirely subjective. Is euthanasia wrong? Take a survey.... is prostitution wrong? What do the majority of people think today? Now... generally humans think that stealing is bad... there are points of morality that seem fairly universal but the point is, it's all completely subjective - ONLY what most people feel at that place and time. What makes religious morality different is that it comes from OUTSIDE and ABOVE us, it's not the result of a poll.



.

 

[Albion]

People who believe in some kind of deity/ies might argue that the innate sense that some things are wrong stem from the influence of their deity/ies, while others would argue it's just common sense or the universe's divine spark or whatever else. Either way, there's some merit in the argument that a basic moral framework is as much a practical matter as a religious matter.

If it's based on a religious principle, it's often called moral. If it's based on some socio-political concept not dependent upon a religious belief, it's often said to be ethical.

 

[tango]

Yes. Indeed, I think you could make a case that in some ways, outward and observable morality can be even greater in secular than in religious societies (think Japan and Sweden). Perhaps.

The difference, IMO, is that in godless societies, morality is simply a matter of majority opinion at the time. It's entirely subjective. Is euthanasia wrong? Take a survey.... is prostitution wrong? What do the majority of people think today? Now... generally humans think that stealing is bad... there are points of morality that seem fairly universal but the point is, it's all completely subjective - ONLY what most people feel at that place and time. What makes religious morality different is that it comes from OUTSIDE and ABOVE us, it's not the result of a poll.

The thing with stealing and killing and the like is that there is a clearly identifiable victim. With something like prostitution there is no victim, assuming all parties are freely consenting (obviously someone who is trafficked and forced into prostitution is a very different situation from someone who chooses it as an alternative to stacking shelves at Walmart). If you don't agree with prostitution you are welcome to not take advantage of their services - the question usually under discussion comes down to whether laws should be passed preventing anyone from visiting a prostitute. Likewise with drunkenness there is no identifiable victim - the person sitting at home drinking themselves silly isn't harming anyone else through their excesses. The heavy drinker may drink themselves into an early grave but they are freely choosing a course of action that will shorten their life.

I'm sure we can adhere to personal morality without requring that it be deemed universally right and wrong, and we can follow our own moral codes without requiring that anyone else also follows that code.

You are right that religious morality comes from outside of ourselves - for a morality to be determined by religion pretty much requires that it come from some kind of external source, naturally the deity/ies worshiped by followers of the religion. I suspect a lot of more secular morality is driven by a more vague concept of "for the good of society" - societies work better when things like rape and murder are punished even if they can't be prevented ahead of time, although then of course there are different viewpoints as to what is best for society as a whole. Sometimes "the good of society" provides a handy justification to take your stuff because "someone else needs it more".

 

[Albion]

I'm sure we can adhere to personal morality without requring that it be deemed universally right and wrong, and we can follow our own moral codes without requiring that anyone else also follows that code.

Would you say, then, that choosing to transport highly dangerous explosives on a public highway or driving while drunk shouldn't be regulated or prohibited by government since, after all, these are the preferences of some people, and no one else is harmed until they actually are harmed (at which time the state can prosecute them)?