Are secular societies prone to moral decay?

[Tomorrows_Child]

You can not legislate morality. What is moral and what is not is up to each individual. Some think the caste system, sharia law, and polygamy are all immoral. Some people believe that anyone not of their own religion is immoral.

I agree, if we left morality up to human beings, some would believe sexual assault was fine while others would feel it is abhorrent.

Which is why religion, the correct religion may I add, must be the guiding force. That's what I'm stating.

 

[Demonslayer]

I agree, if we left morality up to human beings, some would believe sexual assault was fine while others would feel it is abhorrent.

Which is why religion, the correct religion may I add, must be the guiding force. That's what I'm stating.

You really think anyone answering honestly would think sexual assault was morally correct? I submit that rapists know what they are doing is wrong.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

You really think anyone answering honestly would think sexual assault was morally correct? I submit that rapists know what they are doing is wrong.

I don't think so. I've met rapists who may be regarded as medical insane by psychiatrists, that claim they didn't do anything wrong. And when I say met, I do mean sat a foot away from them and had a conversation. I've met murderers who feel the same way. We label them as medically insane because they offend our moral nature but to them, it was never an issue and it may never be an issue.

 

[Demonslayer]

We label them as medically insane because they offend our moral nature but to them, it was never an issue and it may never be an issue.

Right, to them murder isn't an issue because they are insane. Murder is a pretty straightforward issue, as no one would say it's OK if someone murdered them or their loved ones.

Besides, religious texts all have sections where their God commands murder. So even if you lean on religious morality, you'll still have a gray area.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Right, to them murder isn't an issue because they are insane. Murder is a pretty straightforward issue, as no one would say it's OK if someone murdered them or their loved ones.

Besides, religious texts all have sections where their God commands murder. So even if you lean on religious morality, you'll still have a gray area.

You are missing the point. I was agreeing with an individual who said that morality can be dependent upon each individual and to certain individuals, murder and rape is not immoral. You can label them insane and I think it's a convenient way for society to pigeonhole these people but they are just plain bad. As a medical student, I have spoken to many doctors who doubt the validity of the "insanity" of these patients and have told me personally that they feel these people are sane, they just enjoyed doing what they do. Sadly, the way the law in Britain in constructed, they can appear to be insane and reap the benefits.

So who is right? Why is our morality, in which we state murder is wrong, better than another groups morality, no matter how minor, which states murder is right? Why, how and when did we come up with this general idea that murder is wrong? Who is to say we are correct?

Btw, I can not speak on behalf of other religions but Islam condemns murder openly and without ambiguity.

 

[Demonslayer]

You are missing the point

I think I'm just disagreeing with the point.

So who is right? Why is our morality, in which we state murder is wrong, better than another groups morality, no matter how minor, which states murder is right? Why, how and when did we come up with this general idea that murder is wrong? Who is to say we are correct?

Most people when you boil morality down to it's most basic idea, agree that 'doing harm' is generally wrong in nearly every moral code ever known to man. Now, you can play the '100% completely subjective' game and say "what makes throwing sacks of babies into meat grinders morally wrong, maybe it's morally right!" Of course I generally agree that morality is subjective, but there are some base principals on which the vast, vast majority of humans and moral codes agree.

Otherwise, if your idea is that absolutely anything could be moral or immoral, you can hardly then go on to claim actual morality can come from religion. Because if throwing sacks of babies into meat grinders could be morally right, Islamic morality could be morally wrong, based on your idea that we just can't make any statements whatsoever about right or wrong.

Btw, I can not speak on behalf of other religions but Islam condemns murder openly and without ambiguity.

I assume you're using some odd definition of murder that doesn't include all the slaying that Allah commands. That's righteous killing and not murder or something, right?

 

[McBell]

I agree, if we left morality up to human beings, some would believe sexual assault was fine while others would feel it is abhorrent.

Which is why religion, the correct religion may I add, must be the guiding force. That's what I'm stating.

"the correct religion"?

How do you determine if a religion is "correct"?

 

[Demonslayer]

"the correct religion"?

How do you determine if a religion is "correct"?

Didn't you get a copy of the answer key? I thought everyone had one by now.

I've got one around here somewhere it tells which one is correct, hang on a second let me see if I can find it...

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

"the correct religion"?

How do you determine if a religion is "correct"?

However you decide it; I'll bet 5 zenny that confirmation bias isn't a factor.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I think I'm just disagreeing with the point.



Most people when you boil morality down to it's most basic idea, agree that 'doing harm' is generally wrong in nearly every moral code ever known to man. Now, you can play the '100% completely subjective' game and say "what makes throwing sacks of babies into meat grinders morally wrong, maybe it's morally right!" Of course I generally agree that morality is subjective, but there are some base principals on which the vast, vast majority of humans and moral codes agree.

Otherwise, if your idea is that absolutely anything could be moral or immoral, you can hardly then go on to claim actual morality can come from religion. Because if throwing sacks of babies into meat grinders could be morally right, Islamic morality could be morally wrong, based on your idea that we just can't make any statements whatsoever about right or wrong.



I assume you're using some odd definition of murder that doesn't include all the slaying that Allah commands. That's righteous killing and not murder or something, right?

Again, that's it. I'm not making moral statements based on my personal likes/dislikes and tastes, I do so based on Gods commandments. If God states that to kill an innocent person is as if you have killed the whole of humanity, I take it as thus. If God says it is wrong to buy goods for very cheap prices and sell it at extortionate prices to make huge profits is wrong, I take it as thus. And so on.

Your final point, let me define to you what murder is. Via the Oxford English dictionary:

Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Unlawfully...meaning that there are lawful reasons for killing someone, it may be in self defense, it maybe in a war situation (a correct war, not one based on lies or for the purpose of spreading oppression), it may be by accident. Islam forbids murder.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

"the correct religion"?

How do you determine if a religion is "correct"?

I have already determined what religion is correct for me. It is up to you to determine what religion is correct for you or maybe you will determine that no religion is correct for you. That is up to you and your intellect. As long as your beliefs are not hurting people unnecessarily or oppressing the weak and the destitute, I don't care if you believe in flying pigs, that is your choice.

 

[McBell]

I have already determined what religion is correct for me. It is up to you to determine what religion is correct for you or maybe you will determine that no religion is correct for you. That is up to you and your intellect. As long as your beliefs are not hurting people unnecessarily or oppressing the weak and the destitute, I don't care if you believe in flying pigs, that is your choice.

I asked HOW do you determine....

 

[blue taylor]

I have already determined what religion is correct for me. It is up to you to determine what religion is correct for you or maybe you will determine that no religion is correct for you. That is up to you and your intellect. As long as your beliefs are not hurting people unnecessarily or oppressing the weak and the destitute, I don't care if you believe in flying pigs, that is your choice.

Thats the problem. Almost all religions hurt others unnecessarily, and oppress the weak (especially of mind) and destitute, because if you are not of their religion, they somehow think you are inferior, heritical, or just don't understand. Anyone of one faith looks down upon those of another. They surely do not look up to them. Governments are more able to provide moral leadership by defining morality and enforcing laws that support it. But only if it is free of special interests. Religion included.
“Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” MLK

 

[Valjean]

I agree, if we left morality up to human beings, some would believe sexual assault was fine while others would feel it is abhorrent.

Which is why religion, the correct religion may I add, must be the guiding force. That's what I'm stating.

Who determines correct religion? And once the correct religion is mandated, how will it be enforced?
I think this sort of religious tyrrany has a pretty dismal history.
You might also consider some of the Old Testament teachings about sex, marriage, concubinage, sexual slavery, &c. A lot of these would never fly, today.
I think the Islam has some questionable practices, as well.

I don't think so. I've met rapists who may be regarded as medical insane by psychiatrists, that claim they didn't do anything wrong.

How would the correct religion have affected these men's decisions?

 

[blue taylor]

I have already determined what religion is correct for me. It is up to you to determine what religion is correct for you or maybe you will determine that no religion is correct for you. That is up to you and your intellect. As long as your beliefs are not hurting people unnecessarily or oppressing the weak and the destitute, I don't care if you believe in flying pigs, that is your choice.

Migrant, 20, arrived in Austria via Balkans in September and was a taxi driver. Raped boy in cubicle of Resienbad pool - then had fun on the diving board. Told police he knew it was wrong - but he had not had sex for four months Said that he was not 'always sick' as he has a wife and a child back in Iraq.
His religion is not stated here. (You Can Guess) But it evidently did not stop him from homosexual, pedophile rape. Neither did laws. However his religion would not punish him for what he did, nor keep him from doing it again. The law will do both.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree, if we left morality up to human beings, some would believe sexual assault was fine while others would feel it is abhorrent.

Which is why religion, the correct religion may I add, must be the guiding force. That's what I'm stating.

You think religion isn't 'of human beings'?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think people confuse moral relativity with moral arbitration.
Morals are most definitely relative from a universal standpoint. That multiple moral positions exist means that there is not one moral system and thus relative to the individual. But this doesn't mean people who believe in moral relativism believes 'anything can go.'
Most secular individuals have a moral system that fall somewhere in the utilitarian to consequentialism spectrum. They consider the help v harm of various actions based on tangible consequences to individuals or society and make judgements. Now a religious person may say that a person who isn't perfectly omniscient will never have all the variables to make a perfect decision, and they'd be right. There should always be room for doubt and margin for error in moral judgements, and one should try and gather as much information as they can before making those judgements.
However, personally I think a theistic truth-by-revelation sort of person comes from a much less tenuous position on moral judgement. Because they have to make a lot of assumptions to arrive at moral judgement that aren't based on verifiable information:
1. There is a god or gods.
2. That god or gods is/are able to correctly assess human needs. (Unrelatable, alien gods who don't actually understand their creation)
3. It/they are willing to give perfect judgement. (Omnipotent but not omnibenevolent for example)
4. If their revealed judgement is accurate (scriptural accuracy).
5. If the recipient interprets that revealed judgement accurately.
6. That the judgement is not arrival by human mind without a god's interference.

So far I have not found a religion where my own moral judgement could be honestly called less 'objective' than what the believers are saying. So I'd rather approach moral questions based on tangible effects than the series of assumptions required to use theistic doctrine. Then, at least we would have more to talk about Than just 'this is what I assume the deity is saying, whom I assume is good, who I assume this is the writing of and its accuracy, that I assume I need in order to make sound judgement.'

 

[ak.yonathan]

First of all, what moral standards are you talking about? As far as I know there is no such thing as an objective moral standard.

 

[viole]

I have already determined what religion is correct for me. It is up to you to determine what religion is correct for you or maybe you will determine that no religion is correct for you. That is up to you and your intellect. As long as your beliefs are not hurting people unnecessarily or oppressing the weak and the destitute, I don't care if you believe in flying pigs, that is your choice.

I wonder what the added value of religion is. If we are free to determine what the right religion is, how is that different from determining what the right moral is?

You are introducing a superflous middle man, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ak.yonathan]

Thats the problem. Almost all religions hurt others unnecessarily, and oppress the weak (especially of mind) and destitute, because if you are not of their religion, they somehow think you are inferior, heritical, or just don't understand. Anyone of one faith looks down upon those of another. They surely do not look up to them. Governments are more able to provide moral leadership by defining morality and enforcing laws that support it. But only if it is free of special interests. Religion included.
“Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” MLK

What is your basis for making such claims? Can you actually provide authentic religious teachings that command believers to look down and oppress others?