Morality

[Pah]

This thread will cover many aspects of morality but before we delve into those we ought to establish a definition of morality in relation to religious views.

Can we distinguish from an absolute morality versus a universal morality?

Can we say that morality is the behavior that follows from a religious truth?

Even if we recognize that morality is the social behavior of society, can we not recognize that there is a religious morality based on religious society?

In this thread, secular definitions and statements must also apply to sectarian thought. We won't talk about relative morality until we can establish the understanding of religious morality.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

To me morality relates to and depends on the philosophy of the group you are considering.
Religious morality is no different.
Define the philosophy of the group or religion and the morality follows.

Terry
_____________________________________

Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Any discussion of "religious morality" must first address the Eurythro dilemma.

 

[michel]

Any discussion of "religious morality" must first address the Eurythro dilemma.

Deut, you really have caught me out this time ; what is the Eurythro dilemma ?
(I struggle with some of your vocabulary - I dread to think how many words it comprises!)

 

[Ormiston]

I think morality is learned and taught.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut, you really have caught me out this time ; what is the Eurythro dilemma?

Is the stance or action moral because it conforms to God's judgement, or is it God's judgement because the stance or action is moral?

 

[michel]

Is the stance or action moral because it conforms to God's judgement, or is it God's judgement because the stance or action is moral?

Ah, thanks; excuse my lack of knowledge.

.............."Can we distinguish from an absolute morality versus a universal morality?

Can we say that morality is the behavior that follows from a religious truth?

Even if we recognize that morality is the social behavior of society, can we not recognize that there is a religious morality based on religious society?

In this thread, secular definitions and statements must also apply to sectarian thought. We won't talk about relative morality until we can establish the understanding of religious morality."...................

Crikey! you don't ask much. do you pah?

A) What do you mean by 'a religious truth' ?

B) Yes, but I think the two can run concurrently; I also think that the two can be the same, but have arrived at the destination by different routes.

C)I agree with your last paragraph; there are going to be vast differences depending on race, culture etc

 

[Pah]

The Eurythro dilemma is a nice thread Duet but I'm not after that distinction. Nor am I intersted in any other source as "learned or taught".

We start from the given that there is a morality

 

[Pah]

To me morality relates to and depends on the philosophy of the group you are considering.
Religious morality is no different.
Define the philosophy of the group or religion and the morality follows.

Then you would be against an absolute morality but you had said nothing about universal morality - or have you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Eurythro dilemma is a nice thread Duet but I'm not after that distinction.

There is a reason why Eurythro didn't turn to Socrates and complain: "Nice question but I'd rather talk about another dsitinction." What you're after has little to do with what you're stuck with.

 

[Pah]

There is a reason why Eurythro didn't turn to Socrates and complain: "Nice question but I'd rather talk about another dsitinction." What you're after has little to do with what you're stuck with.

Reading minds, are we, Duet? I'm not sure I care about the question either, but feel free to PM me or start a new thread as suggested.

 

[Pah]

Michel,

A religious truth? - something taken as truth by reason of faith. In this case, a commandment.

I don't understand the answer to what appears tob for my second question.

Yes, but I think the two can run concurrently; I also think that the two can be the same, but have arrived at the destination by different routes

Can we say that morality is the behavior that follows from a religious truth?

Are you saying, Michel, that there are "vast differences depending on race, culture etc" in response to what question?

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

First off, kudos to Pah for quite the interesting thread.

Can we distinguish from an absolute morality versus a universal morality?

I guess the first question that comes to mind when confronted with this question is whether a morality is absolute if it weren't universal? Then again I guess that depends on what standards one uses to define an absolute morality. If one considers a morality to be so despite what people feel or believe (kind of like absolute truth) then there would still have to be a standard by which they define it as absolute while a universal morality could be absolute or not if I am right in assuming that by universal you mean universally accepted ( by the human race anyways ).

Can we say that morality is the behavior that follows from a religious truth?

Well sure we can, although in itself, that no more makes it true than stating that it is caused by social behavior. I must confess that I chuckle when one claims that morality is only a result of social behavior passed down with no more proof than a Christian stating that morality comes from the Bible. There must be more to ones argument than that.

Even if we recognize that morality is the social behavior of society, can we not recognize that there is a religious morality based on religious society?

To not do so would be to purposly ignore a blatant fact. The problem occurs when trying to answer the $64,000 ? of "what came first, the egg or the chicken"( In this case, religious morality or social morality) but before we can even do that one must identify which one is even the "egg" or the "chicken" (religion[God, etc.] or society].

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Pah]

I guess the first question that comes to mind when confronted with this question is whether a morality is absolute if it weren't universal? Then again I guess that depends on what standards one uses to define an absolute morality. If one considers a morality to be so despite what people feel or believe (kind of like absolute truth) then there would still have to be a standard by which they define it as absolute while a universal morality could be absolute or not if I am right in assuming that by universal you mean universally accepted ( by the human race anyways ).

I don't know that there must be a connection between the two. Absolute seems to be above a universal where the universal can be morality held in common but utlimetly not correct. But I'm not sure what an absolute moral principle is. To me, it must be a moral principle without exception. If there is any exception, it can not be absolute.

Well sure we can, although in itself, that no more makes it true than stating that it is caused by social behavior. I must confess that I chuckle when one claims that morality is only a result of social behavior passed down with no more proof than a Christian stating that morality comes from the Bible. There must be more to ones argument than that.

Would you be saying that morality from a religious origin is but one morality of many?

To not do so would be to purposly ignore a blatant fact. The problem occurs when trying to answer the $64,000 ? of "what came first, the egg or the chicken"( In this case, religious morality or social morality) but before we can even do that one must identify which one is even the "egg" or the "chicken" (religion[God, etc.] or society.

The evolution of morality would say social preceded religious morality. I think there was a society of sorts in extended family or clan groupings before a religious structure was applied to them. The key word is structure. There were prohibitions about behavior long before spirituality was institutionalized. Appeasment and worship was an individual thing before it became a social norm

 

[Fluffy]

Can we distinguish from an absolute morality versus a universal morality?

The way I understand it, absolute and relative morality are opposite extremes whilst universal morality stands as a compromise between the two, ridding the assumption of ingrained moral values without debasing morality into an expression of likes and dislikes.

Absolutism states that not only are there morals ingrained into the fabric of the universe but also that these morals always hold up, regardless of situation or circumstance.

Universalism simply deduces that since there are many similarities between separate ethical codes, a common moral ground can be found. There are no claim that these morals have any sort of authority behind them but merely that, since they can be found in nearly all cultures, they are likely to fit and be practical for a modern day environment. These morals can be tempered by each individual scenario.

Can we say that morality is the behavior that follows from a religious truth?

I’m not comfortable with this definition for 2 reasons. Firstly, morality has nothing to do with behaviour but with either the analysis of behaviour or the application of previous conclusions to new circumstances. Secondly, even if you were using the word ‘religious’ to refer to any way of thinking that contained some level of belief, this would still not account of moral relativism or the admission that morality equates to the likes and dislikes of each individual. If you meant this question with regards to the qualifications stated in the original post then discount this reply but, to me, bringing universalism into it is enough to bring up a belief system that does not require religion.

Even if we recognize that morality is the social behavior of society, can we not recognize that there is a religious morality based on religious society?

I am not certain if I understand this question correctly. Are you asking whether a secular, social moral code will also always have religious roots in order to provide some sort of authority?



Nice thread by the way, pah. I’ll frubal you if it will let me .

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

On Religious Morality: Even a broken clock displays the correct time twice a day. In other words, when you base your morals on an irrational set of beliefs, by sheer chance you will sometimes hit a "correct" answer. But as the following examples will illustrate, the wrong answers are frequently hit, i.e. religiously based ethics generally do more harm than good.

The following examples involve dire negative consequences and should be considered instances of extreme moral incompetence.

• Suicidal terrorist attacks (e.g. Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington; Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians; etc.) with expectation of great rewards in an afterlife.
• Violence and warfare motivated by the belief that a certain territory has been given by god to a particular people (e.g. the belief that the West Bank is part, indeed the core, of the Jewish "Promised Land").
• Christian terrorists who murder abortion providers.
• Blaming civil libertarians, feminists, gays and pagans (as did the Rev. Jerry Falwell) for incurring the wrath of "God" who thus allowed the Sept. 11, 2002 terrorist attacks to occur.
• Religiously motivated inter-communal violence: Hindus persecuting Muslims, Muslims persecuting Christians, Christians persecuting pagans, etc. etc.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I don't know that there must be a connection between the two. Absolute seems to be above a universal where the universal can be morality held in common but utlimetly not correct. But I'm not sure what an absolute moral principle is. To me, it must be a moral principle without exception. If there is any exception, it can not be absolute.

Couldn't agree more, although I am curious as to what you mean by "exception".

Would you be saying that morality from a religious origin is but one morality of many?

Alright, here we go with th tricky word play so I better be careful . Now, ofcourse as a Christian Theist I believe that morality has only one origin. My earlier statement was more of a recognition of different philosophical explainations. I am not stating that they can both be true since they contradict each other (First Principle of Noncontradiction).

The evolution of morality would say social preceded religious morality. I think there was a society of sorts in extended family or clan groupings before a religious structure was applied to them. The key word is structure. There were prohibitions about behavior long before spirituality was institutionalized. Appeasment and worship was an individual thing before it became a social norm

This statement is dependant on no more than a worldview, but I won't get too far into that and risk going off subject in this thread.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[dan]

This thread will cover many aspects of morality but before we delve into those we ought to establish a definition of morality in relation to religious views.

Can we distinguish from an absolute morality versus a universal morality?

Can we say that morality is the behavior that follows from a religious truth?

Even if we recognize that morality is the social behavior of society, can we not recognize that there is a religious morality based on religious society?

In this thread, secular definitions and statements must also apply to sectarian thought. We won't talk about relative morality until we can establish the understanding of religious morality.

Religious morality is called by philosophers divine-command ethics, and there are thousands of books written on that subject, so go read those books.

The two moralities are the same. The only distinction that might be derived is in the source of the morality, but it's a weak argument.

You can say that if you're speaking of divine-command ethics, but there are many different kinds of morality. Morality doesn't necessarily have to do with society. Even without a society morality exists, but yes, of course there is a religious morality based on religious society; it just isn't the right morality.

Lastly, relative morality, or moral relativity, is a laughable basis for ethics. No serious philosopher takes it seriously. Most philosophical text books let you know up front that no real important philosophers ever used it, only stupid freshmen and right-wing activists.

 

[dan]

On Religious Morality: Even a broken clock displays the correct time twice a day. In other words, when you base your morals on an irrational set of beliefs, by sheer chance you will sometimes hit a "correct" answer. But as the following examples will illustrate, the wrong answers are frequently hit, i.e. religiously based ethics generally do more harm than good.

The following examples involve dire negative consequences and should be considered instances of extreme moral incompetence.

• Suicidal terrorist attacks (e.g. Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington; Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians; etc.) with expectation of great rewards in an afterlife.
• Violence and warfare motivated by the belief that a certain territory has been given by god to a particular people (e.g. the belief that the West Bank is part, indeed the core, of the Jewish "Promised Land").
• Christian terrorists who murder abortion providers.
• Blaming civil libertarians, feminists, gays and pagans (as did the Rev. Jerry Falwell) for incurring the wrath of "God" who thus allowed the Sept. 11, 2002 terrorist attacks to occur.
• Religiously motivated inter-communal violence: Hindus persecuting Muslims, Muslims persecuting Christians, Christians persecuting pagans, etc. etc.

The only flaw in your argument is that these religiously based ethics are coming from religions that are man-made, and not true. True religion creates absolute morality, and it is the only source of good in this world.

 

[Pah]

Religious morality is called by philosophers divine-command ethics, and there are thousands of books written on that subject, so go read those books.

Aw Dan, you did this before (good to have you back posting, by the way). If you have the knowledge, it would be nice to give instead of some direction to an unfocused schooling attempt.

The two moralities are the same. The only distinction that might be derived is in the source of the morality, but it's a weak argument.

I can't imagine a single moral principle that is absolute, an absolute would have to be without exception. Universal does not make that definitional claim - it says many, many people follow a common morality.

You can say that if you're speaking of divine-command ethics, but there are many different kinds of morality. Morality doesn't necessarily have to do with society. Even without a society morality exists, but yes, of course there is a religious morality based on religious society; it just isn't the right morality.

I'm curious as to why you say morality may not apply to a society. Do you know a society that has no rules?

And I'm quite unclear what you mean "a religious morality based on religious society; it just isn't the right morality"

Lastly, relative morality, or moral relativity, is a laughable basis for ethics. No serious philosopher takes it seriously. Most philosophical text books let you know up front that no real important philosophers ever used it, only stupid freshmen and right-wing activists.

I'm sure you're wrong about that. Even the morality captured in American law understands that there are differences. International law is different than Federal law and differant again from State law. Each provides to their jurisdiction a varying picture of proper, acceptible behavior.