Religious belief and morality

[Sand Dancer]

We've heard it before: you cannot be moral without God, or other similar sentiments. (A friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman, great humanist and oncologist, wrote a book called "Can We Be Good Without God?" He passed away a few years ago, sadly.)

But thinker Steven Weinberg once said something along the lines of "believing in an omniscient creator doesn't contain any inherent moral value -- you still have to decide whether to obey His commands."

Thus, think of Abraham, prepared -- at the command of God -- to slaughter his son Isaac. His own son! Now, to me, it is a spurious theological argument to suggest that, since God interfered at the last moment and supplied a goat for the purpose. Abraham, as a human being with a moral sense of his own, should have KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that to kill a child -- on anybody's "orders" -- is simply wrong.

Likewise, the Israelites under Joshua, killing all the Canaanites, except for the virgin girls who could be put to "better use." Surely the Israelites were moral agents, and could reason for themselves whether such a command from God could be the right thing to do -- could they not?

Please try to stick to the argument in question: does "divine command" outweigh your own sense of moral behaviour, or is it better you should do what God seems to command, even if you feel queasy about it?

They want to make it sound different and special, so people will want to convert.

 

[Moz]

I was a teacher and am a parent. The assertion that 'no one is teaching morality' is ridiculous.
As is the assertion that religion drives moral behaviour in and of itself.

There are both moral and immoral religious folk, as I'm sure you're aware.
It's much the same with non religious folk.

I've suggested this to some before, but do you really see the more secular countries (let's say New Zealand) as less moral than a country with high rates of religiosity like Papua New Guinea?

The assertion that 'no one is teaching morality' is ridiculous.
I see absolutely NO attempt to teach about the immorality of War in the schools unless it is looking back to blame some imagined oppressive past that must be overturned.Contemporary warfare is not up for criticism in the patriotic world of secular morality. Oh the sides argue about the morality of certain wars but the concept of just war is pretty much the default.

The schools are furiously teaching the morality of tolerance and non offence that is totally unworkable in a world that is intrinsically intolerant and offensive..... it is not a deeply thought out proposition when viewed long term.
............................................
I've suggested this to some before, but do you really see the more secular countries (let's say New Zealand) as less moral than a country with high rates of religiosity like Papua New Guinea

You confuse the prosperity and the acceptance of the "rule of law" in western societies with morality. Poverty and deprivation fuel a harder type of life is all. A major economic depression may balance the scales more than you would like to admit. The historical evidence that the more prosperous a society the more moral considerations can be addressed seems pretty conclusive.

The tribal societies of Papua are exceedingly moral within their own context as they are derived from the agreed tribal norms adopted over hundreds of generations. So were the aboriginal societies of Australia. Of course their morals were also codified in the oral traditions passed down for thousands of years.

What do you find particularly immoral about the Papuans anyway.... i know a few and they are the most gentle kind loyal and open people i have ever met. They do have a certain savage edge if you are unfortunate enough to run into it... but it was a hard culture and bred hard people. But morally speaking i think i would go with the Papuan over the Pakeha (white Kiwi's) if i knew him.

 

[Sand Dancer]

You don't have to be religious to be moral. Many of the people in the Bible who believed in the deity weren't moral.

And reading the Bible, we find that its god is hardly moral.

 

[Moz]

So what would you do with a little person with a penis who says, "I'm a girl?" Smack him upside the head until he gets over it?

I'll answer the rest of this screed later. Unlike you, I don't know the absolute right and wrong of everything, and have to think about it. God/Christ didn't deign to inform me of what I'm required to know.

Thinking is good. There is much you need to think about. While you're at it how about thinking about not using stupid examples that are obviously ridiculous and frankly insulting because they have no basis in anything i have written. If you truly think from the way i have expressed myself that i would......Smack him upside the head until he gets over it? Then i do not even want you to reply to the screed. I challenge you to find a single line that even hints that that is what i have been advocating. I have been talking about psychological intervention and to twist it the way you are trying to is so bloody childish it makes my head spin.

I don't know the absolute right and wrong of everything,
Or of anything it seems except not to upset or hurt anyone's feelings, ever ,no matter how crazy their ideas are.
When in doubt we should follow the biology is all that i am saying. Any other conclusion leads to the psychological and only buttresses the argument that i have been making. Yes you do have a lot of thinking to do haven't you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or of anything it seems except not to upset or hurt anyone's feelings, ever ,no matter how crazy their ideas are.

Quote where I said that please. Because I didn't, and that rather suggests that it's not entirely my reading ability that needs work. Please remember to quote in context, of course, as to do otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Moz]

Somehow forgotten about the laws we seem to enact - which most likely come from attempts to curb our less friendly behaviour towards others? Why is it so unnatural to think that we could do so for morality just as much without any religious influences? I'm not concerned about discarding religions - one can worship what one wants in my view - but just about disentangling morality from them when it just seems to be projection, and good intentions aside, a mistake. Or do you believe all religions have the same message? Argue with history, since you will lose!

Somehow forgotten about the laws we seem to enact - which most likely come from attempts to curb our less friendly behaviour towards others?

Laws that try to socially engineer mankind into some homogeneous lump that can be identified as moral humanity are doomed to failure and an ocean of blood. Absolutely doomed. They will have to kill me before i accept it anyway.
..............................................
Why is it so unnatural to think that we could do so for morality just as much without any religious influences?

Yes it is so unnatural that i can not even believe that you would suggest it is possible......So codify morality into the law. Get everyone to agree on a shared set of values and put anyone outside those values into the camp of the immoral. Good luck with that. That way leads to the gulag's and re education camps, for the good of society of course .Btw it is the sexual morals that you will never ever get agreement on. All that you will accomplish is to push hundreds of millions into the closet in the service of freeing a couple of million. It is not a good trade.
..............................................
I'm not concerned about discarding religions - one can worship what one wants in my view - but just about disentangling morality from them when it just seems to be projection, and good intentions aside, a mistake. Or do you believe all religions have the same message? Argue with history, since you will lose!

All religions? I am referring specifically to Jehovah and the message contained in his scriptures. Other than sexual standards , which you no doubt have a different viewpoint than mine, what specific Bible morals are a mistake.

 

[Moz]

Quote where I said that please. Because I didn't, and that rather suggests that it's not entirely my reading ability that needs work. Please remember to quote in context, of course, as to do otherwise is dishonest.

Fair enough. I did over state what you had said in the attempt at being concise. You did acknowledge that there are indeed some thoughts that should not be embraced. I assumed that as a given, as you had already clarified that, and i was referring to the crazy idea of 60+ genders that you seemed fine with in the pursuit of not daring to hurt anyone's feelings. You have been consistent with your declaration that moral are about not hurting other peoples feelings so i do not see any dishonesty in my response

 

[Mock Turtle]

Somehow forgotten about the laws we seem to enact - which most likely come from attempts to curb our less friendly behaviour towards others?

Laws that try to socially engineer mankind into some homogeneous lump that can be identified as moral humanity are doomed to failure and an ocean of blood. Absolutely doomed. They will have to kill me before i accept it anyway.

Much like religions? Except we have a variety of these - many claiming to be 'the only way' - how close are we to having agreements between them as opposed to what is lawful in most countries around the world and what isn't? Seemingly coming to a consensus on such things. Strip away the religions, would we all descend into unruly behaviour? The atheists certainly wouldn't.

Your fervour sounds very much like many others with similar convictions - going to fight them all?

Why is it so unnatural to think that we could do so for morality just as much without any religious influences?

Yes it is so unnatural that i can not even believe that you would suggest it is possible......So codify morality into the law. Get everyone to agree on a shared set of values and put anyone outside those values into the camp of the immoral. Good luck with that. That way leads to the gulag's and re education camps, for the good of society of course .Btw it is the sexual morals that you will never ever get agreement on. All that you will accomplish is to push hundreds of millions into the closet in the service of freeing a couple of million. It is not a good trade.

Our morality is essentially written into law - an unwritten one - which, as mentioned above seems to surpass any religious influences - unless they all essentially have much the same to say - as atheists do also.

I'm not concerned about discarding religions - one can worship what one wants in my view - but just about disentangling morality from them when it just seems to be projection, and good intentions aside, a mistake. Or do you believe all religions have the same message? Argue with history, since you will lose!

All religions? I am referring specifically to Jehovah and the message contained in his scriptures. Other than sexual standards , which you no doubt have a different viewpoint than mine, what specific Bible morals are a mistake.

I have an issue when religions seem to cause divisions within societies rather than bringing people together. If we all could have the same basic moral sense - which I would argue is not that difficult to achieve - and outside of religions, then we would be better off and more capable of facing future changes in societies without so many problems. From the viewpoint of many religions, many do seem to see declines - inevitable when a particular moral schema is laid out so long ago and which cannot anticipate the future - regardless of anything proffered in such texts. And perhaps the declines seen are just natural evolution of our societies anyway - there being good and bad in most societies during their various stages of development.

 

[Moz]

Much like religions? Except we have a variety of these - many claiming to be 'the only way' - how close are we to having agreements between them as opposed to what is lawful in most countries around the world and what isn't? Seemingly coming to a consensus on such things. Strip away the religions, would we all descend into unruly behaviour? The atheists certainly wouldn't.

Your fervour sounds very much like many others with similar convictions - going to fight them all?

Our morality is essentially written into law - an unwritten one - which, as mentioned above seems to surpass any religious influences - unless they all essentially have much the same to say - as atheists do also.


I have an issue when religions seem to cause divisions within societies rather than bringing people together. If we all could have the same basic moral sense - which I would argue is not that difficult to achieve - and outside of religions, then we would be better off and more capable of facing future changes in societies without so many problems. From the viewpoint of many religions, many do seem to see declines - inevitable when a particular moral schema is laid out so long ago and which cannot anticipate the future - regardless of anything proffered in such texts. And perhaps the declines seen are just natural evolution of our societies anyway - there being good and bad in most societies during their various stages of development.

Strip away the religions, would we all descend into unruly behaviour? The atheists certainly wouldn't.

It seems that you are still in denial about what atheists actually get up to when they have the power. I have not noticed a response to Augustus' post enlightening you on the atheistic underpinnings of the totalitarian catastrophes of the 20th century. I do not know how to address the ignorance of the comment you have made without going into stuff that you obviously have no idea of.
.....................................................
Your fervour sounds very much like many others with similar convictions - going to fight them all?
I DID NOT SAY that i would fight them. I try to be precise in my language the least you can do is take it as written. I said that they would have to kill ME. I understand why you would not recognize the difference though. You do not seem to think past the first reaction that occurs to you.The idea that i would be violent is just your bias. I have gone to great pains to continually express my opposition to ALL kinds of organized violence. True morality is....... Death before dishonor.
....................................................
If we all could have the same basic moral sense - which I would argue is not that difficult to achieve -

Then for God's sake make the argument... that is what my initial reply was asking you for.

To reiterate..... I think that you are NUTS if you think that establishing an agreed moral code is possible and any serious attempt will be accompanied by massive bloodshed before it fails. Now make your dam argument and please be precise and think about how it would actually come about.... just in a single country if you want so it is a bit easier.

 

[PureX]

I was a teacher and am a parent. The assertion that 'no one is teaching morality' is ridiculous.
As is the assertion that religion drives moral behaviour in and of itself.

No one is asserting that. There are 7 billion humans on this planet, so to say "no one" can't reasonably be intended or taken literally. And the fact that you have to reach that conclusion to make your point weakens your point, not my assertion. Nor do I assert that ONLY religion addresses the philosophical/ethical reasoning guiding the idea of moral and immoral behavior. Societies are very large and complex, so it's very likely that there will occasionally be other entities investigating the concept. And also, because I am making very generalize statements, your anecdotal experiences don't really stand as a counter to the point I'm making, as your experience doesn't reflect or represent everyone else's.

There are both moral and immoral religious folk, as I'm sure you're aware.
It's much the same with non religious folk.

This is neither here nor there, however, as the subject at hand is religion being the one entity that expends considerable time and energy considering and discussion both morality, and the philosophical and ethical imperatives that drive it. Whether or not you or I agree with their conclusions is irrelevant. Or even whether or not religious people are better or worse at following their own moral proscriptions, as that is not the point being offered, here.

The point being offered is that humans in general would rather avoid considering the morality of their own behavior than contemplate and study it's inspiration and reasoning. And it's really only their religions that impel them to do so on a regular or intellectually investigative basis.

I've suggested this to some before, but do you really see the more secular countries (let's say New Zealand) as less moral than a country with high rates of religiosity like Papua New Guinea?

It may be that countries with highly moral political and economic systems enable more highly moral behavior among their citizens. After all, if one doesn't need to struggle and compete with their neighbor to survive, one probably won't be inclined to engage in that sort of exhausting and counter-productive behavior. Or, it may just be that YOUR moral proclivities happen to agree with theirs, and so you presume them to be the "more moral" among us. And perhaps, had you had the benefit of a moral/ethical educational experience, you would have thought of these alternative possibilities, yourself.

 

[wellwisher]

We've heard it before: you cannot be moral without God, or other similar sentiments. (A friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman, great humanist and oncologist, wrote a book called "Can We Be Good Without God?" He passed away a few years ago, sadly.)

But thinker Steven Weinberg once said something along the lines of "believing in an omniscient creator doesn't contain any inherent moral value -- you still have to decide whether to obey His commands."

Thus, think of Abraham, prepared -- at the command of God -- to slaughter his son Isaac. His own son! Now, to me, it is a spurious theological argument to suggest that, since God interfered at the last moment and supplied a goat for the purpose. Abraham, as a human being with a moral sense of his own, should have KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that to kill a child -- on anybody's "orders" -- is simply wrong.

Likewise, the Israelites under Joshua, killing all the Canaanites, except for the virgin girls who could be put to "better use." Surely the Israelites were moral agents, and could reason for themselves whether such a command from God could be the right thing to do -- could they not?

Please try to stick to the argument in question: does "divine command" outweigh your own sense of moral behaviour, or is it better you should do what God seems to command, even if you feel queasy about it?

Most people misunderstand what morality is all about. Morality is a set of rules that optimizes the group. Morality is not about optimizing the individual. Optimizing the subjective needs of individuals; relative morality, will not allow the group to be optimized in any objective way. Everyone will head in different directions.

Consider team sports. The coach tells everyone what to do, so the team can win. God is the like head coach. If we got rid of the teams coach; morality, and allowed the players to decide what is best for themselves; relative morality, the team would never become optimized. They would soon need to form a chain command, then you are back to a coach at the helm so there is one way for all.

As a more practical example of team=morality, consider the commandment thou shall not steal. If we all went along with this, nobody would have to lock up their property, and the group would not have to invest in judges, juries, and prisons. This would result in huge savings in terms of group resources as well as less individual stress and violation. This is an optimized team effort.

If instead, we pander to the individuals and allow some to steal if they so choose, based on their own relative morality, they may become optimized by getting more resources with little effort. However, the group or team suffers. Even a small percent of thieves practicing relative morality, at the expense of the team can add a lot stress and expense. There is a sweet spot for a team championship. While there are thousands of relative spots that lead to group failure. Sports works the same way; One Champion equals an objective measure. Everyone get a trophy, which is relative morality, is a subjective illusion unless the full team wins the championship.

Where God comes in is connected to the role of head coach. Liberalism and mass marketing has shown that the inertia of human nature, prefers relative morality, which can be shown to cause an inefficient use of resources and a team that cannot optimize itself. They need a coach and some incentive to take the higher road and not default to the lower road.

If you look at left versus right in terms of political orientation, each has their own version of relative morality, with liberal more flexible. They cannot work as a team. There is no one coach for all to lead this team. But since God is above humans, theoretically, he can work as the coach and unite the entire team.

All the division in culture is due to relative morality or each person and niche seeking a subjective path of least resistance, to satisfy the inertia of their natures. But the winning team needs will power and a choice to work along the higher road; championship team. The bible has the Israelites following the coach, and not their own relative morality, even when it comes down to not being sure what is right. The team survived and thrived.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The assertion that 'no one is teaching morality' is ridiculous.
I see absolutely NO attempt to teach about the immorality of War in the schools unless it is looking back to blame some imagined oppressive past that must be overturned.Contemporary warfare is not up for criticism in the patriotic world of secular morality. Oh the sides argue about the morality of certain wars but the concept of just war is pretty much the default.

Wait...you mean no one is teaching YOUR morality, rather than no one is teaching morality.
Quite distinct concepts.

The schools are furiously teaching the morality of tolerance and non offence that is totally unworkable in a world that is intrinsically intolerant and offensive..... it is not a deeply thought out proposition when viewed long term.

So...again...your argument isn't that morality isn't being taught. Your argument is that you disagree with the morals being taught.

............................................
I've suggested this to some before, but do you really see the more secular countries (let's say New Zealand) as less moral than a country with high rates of religiosity like Papua New Guinea

You confuse the prosperity and the acceptance of the "rule of law" in western societies with morality. Poverty and deprivation fuel a harder type of life is all. A major economic depression may balance the scales more than you would like to admit. The historical evidence that the more prosperous a society the more moral considerations can be addressed seems pretty conclusive.

Do I now? And why do you believe that I do? Purely because I hold a different position to you? What possible means would you have for knowing that I confuse the prosperity of Western nations and the rule of law with morality, nor my opinion on how the rule of law and morality are related?

The tribal societies of Papua are exceedingly moral within their own context as they are derived from the agreed tribal norms adopted over hundreds of generations. So were the aboriginal societies of Australia. Of course their morals were also codified in the oral traditions passed down for thousands of years.

When you talk about these societies, are you talking about them as they currently exist? It sounds like you're falling into some sort of noble savage trope, or at best assuming their society actually runs to the morals passed down orally. It strikes me as interesting that you'd make the point that they can be 'exceedingly moral within their own context' and yet seem to assume that moral teachings outside your own beliefs in the First World are actually not moral at all.

What do you find particularly immoral about the Papuans anyway.... i know a few and they are the most gentle kind loyal and open people i have ever met. They do have a certain savage edge if you are unfortunate enough to run into it... but it was a hard culture and bred hard people. But morally speaking i think i would go with the Papuan over the Pakeha (white Kiwi's) if i knew him.

I have plenty of Papuan friends, and my comment isn't about individuals at all. I don't consider witch burnings moral, exceedingly high crime rates moral, exceedingly high rates of corruption as moral...
I saw more violence and death and abuse of women in my time in PNG than the rest of my years combined. Certainly more than when I lived in New Zealand. So no, I have nothing against individuals, and take them as they come but...

1. I've lived and worked in both countries (although I'm Australian) so I have some first hand experience. It's recent. Because I lived in both countries and am generally a history buff, I also have a solid grounding of the histories of each country.
2. PNG is...at least nominally...an overwhelmingly Christian country. And secularism generally isn't a strong consideration.
3. New Zealand is a secular country.

 

[Moz]

Wait...you mean no one is teaching YOUR morality, rather than no one is teaching morality.
Quite distinct concepts.



So...again...your argument isn't that morality isn't being taught. Your argument is that you disagree with the morals being taught.



Do I now? And why do you believe that I do? Purely because I hold a different position to you? What possible means would you have for knowing that I confuse the prosperity of Western nations and the rule of law with morality, nor my opinion on how the rule of law and morality are related?




When you talk about these societies, are you talking about them as they currently exist? It sounds like you're falling into some sort of noble savage trope, or at best assuming their society actually runs to the morals passed down orally. It strikes me as interesting that you'd make the point that they can be 'exceedingly moral within their own context' and yet seem to assume that moral teachings outside your own beliefs in the First World are actually not moral at all.




I have plenty of Papuan friends, and my comment isn't about individuals at all. I don't consider witch burnings moral, exceedingly high crime rates moral, exceedingly high rates of corruption as moral...
I saw more violence and death and abuse of women in my time in PNG than the rest of my years combined. Certainly more than when I lived in New Zealand. So no, I have nothing against individuals, and take them as they come but...

1. I've lived and worked in both countries (although I'm Australian) so I have some first hand experience. It's recent. Because I lived in both countries and am generally a history buff, I also have a solid grounding of the histories of each country.
2. PNG is...at least nominally...an overwhelmingly Christian country. And secularism generally isn't a strong consideration.
3. New Zealand is a secular country.

No i mean no one is teaching morality, The leftist tolernance ploy is not about morality it's about social engineering,
Telling kids that any sexual behaviour or thought they have is valid and should be embraced is not morality.
Protecting children from any possible upset feelings or onfrontations or adversitiy is not morality.

If you do not think that differences in economics are the main driver and if you want to attribute any lessor societal morals of the papuans to religion and not poverty them ok. . But you are wrong.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Strip away the religions, would we all descend into unruly behaviour? The atheists certainly wouldn't.

It seems that you are still in denial about what atheists actually get up to when they have the power. I have not noticed a response to Augustus' post enlightening you on the atheistic underpinnings of the totalitarian catastrophes of the 20th century. I do not know how to address the ignorance of the comment you have made without going into stuff that you obviously have no idea of.

That is returned in kind when you seemingly fail to acknowledge the harms that religions have caused over the ages! Are you that blind?

.....................................................

Your fervour sounds very much like many others with similar convictions - going to fight them all?
I DID NOT SAY that i would fight them. I try to be precise in my language the least you can do is take it as written. I said that they would have to kill ME. I understand why you would not recognize the difference though. You do not seem to think past the first reaction that occurs to you

[The idea that i would be violent is just your bias. I have gone to great pains to continually express my opposition to ALL kinds of organized violence. True morality is....... Death before dishonor.

Your language use doesn't indicate this.

....................................................

If we all could have the same basic moral sense - which I would argue is not that difficult to achieve -

Then for God's sake make the argument... that is what my initial reply was asking you for.

To reiterate..... I think that you are NUTS if you think that establishing an agreed moral code is possible and any serious attempt will be accompanied by massive bloodshed before it fails. Now make your dam argument and please be precise and think about how it would actually come about.... just in a single country if you want so it is a bit easier.

Why is it so different from the laws we seemingly enact, which, if one looked all around the world are not that different? You really think we cannot do both?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most people misunderstand what morality is all about. Morality is a set of rules that optimizes the group. Morality is not about optimizing the individual. Optimizing the subjective needs of individuals; relative morality, will not allow the group to be optimized in any objective way. Everyone will head in different directions.

Consider team sports. The coach tells everyone what to do, so the team can win. God is the like head coach. If we got rid of the teams coach; morality, and allowed the players to decide what is best for themselves; relative morality, the team would never become optimized. They would soon need to form a chain command, then you are back to a coach at the helm so there is one way for all.

As a more practical example of team=morality, consider the commandment thou shall not steal. If we all went along with this, nobody would have to lock up their property, and the group would not have to invest in judges, juries, and prisons. This would result in huge savings in terms of group resources as well as less individual stress and violation. This is an optimized team effort.

If instead, we pander to the individuals and allow some to steal if they so choose, based on their own relative morality, they may become optimized by getting more resources with little effort. However, the group or team suffers. Even a small percent of thieves practicing relative morality, at the expense of the team can add a lot stress and expense. There is a sweet spot for a team championship. While there are thousands of relative spots that lead to group failure. Sports works the same way; One Champion equals an objective measure. Everyone get a trophy, which is relative morality, is a subjective illusion unless the full team wins the championship.

Where God comes in is connected to the role of head coach. Liberalism and mass marketing has shown that the inertia of human nature, prefers relative morality, which can be shown to cause an inefficient use of resources and a team that cannot optimize itself. They need a coach and some incentive to take the higher road and not default to the lower road.

If you look at left versus right in terms of political orientation, each has their own version of relative morality, with liberal more flexible. They cannot work as a team. There is no one coach for all to lead this team. But since God is above humans, theoretically, he can work as the coach and unite the entire team.

All the division in culture is due to relative morality or each person and niche seeking a subjective path of least resistance, to satisfy the inertia of their natures. But the winning team needs will power and a choice to work along the higher road; championship team. The bible has the Israelites following the coach, and not their own relative morality, even when it comes down to not being sure what is right. The team survived and thrived.

This "team" idea is immensely over-simplified. First of all, the ball is not always "in play," and when it is not, the players are free to think and do as they see fit. In the same way, not everything I do is connected with the betterment of society. What I choose to eat for dinner, for example, or what TV program I want to watch (or even if I don't want to turn the TV on at all). What line of work I decide is right for me is my own business, but having chosen it, then yes, I have a responsibility to do my best -- and that works for the business, as well as for society overall. But at the end of the business day, I can decide to go for a walk in the park or hit my local pub for a couple of pints, and it makes no never-mind to the business or to society, so they have nothing to say about my choices.

And a lot of life is just that. When I talk about morality, I always refer to it in terms that refer to the world in which I live, and I hold it to be immoral to do anything (deliberately) that may cause harm to another person. I do not think it my responsibility, however, to be actively trying to improve everybody else's life, and especially not at the expense of my own. I've had, for example, people tell me that I'm immoral because I'm gay, and sex should be about making babies. Now, maybe making babies is good for society (and perhaps not), but I'm not obliged to want children, nor am I even obliged to be fertile. Nature is perfectly capable of taking care of population growth (and of curtailing that growth if it gets out of hand).

 

[PureX]

Most people misunderstand what morality is all about.

I get your point but if most people think "X" means 'this', and you think "X" means 'that', doesn't the meaning get defined by how most people mean it?

Morality is a set of rules that optimizes the group. Morality is not about optimizing the individual. Optimizing the subjective needs of individuals; relative morality, will not allow the group to be optimized in any objective way. Everyone will head in different directions.

Well, that's one possible moral imperative. And it's a reasonable one. But it could be also be reasoned that the superior moral imperative would be self-preservation and/or self-fulfillment. Or it might be reasoned (though I'm not sure how logically) that the higher moral imperative is self-sacrifice: the exact opposite of self-preservation.

The point being that morality is the qualification of actions and results based a perceived existential purpose, which is something that we humans can only guess at.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No i mean no one is teaching morality, The leftist tolernance ploy is not about morality it's about social engineering,

Gotta love binary thinking. So either people are teaching religious morality...of a type you're comfortable with...or they're not teaching morality. That's it. No variance in the folks who aren't on your 'team', they're just a bunch of left wing radicals trying to turn the world into a steaming pile of dross via identity politics?

Telling kids that any sexual behaviour or thought they have is valid and should be embraced is not morality.
Protecting children from any possible upset feelings or onfrontations or adversitiy is not morality.

If you knew me at all, you'd know how ridiculous that sounds.

If you do not think that differences in economics are the main driver and if you want to attribute any lessor societal morals of the papuans to religion and not poverty them ok. . But you are wrong.

You really should be careful putting words into my mouth. If you'd like my words and thoughts, here they are;
The vast majority of Papuan issues are related to education and economics.
There is also problems relating to the cyclical nature of abuse and violence, since it normalises such behaviour to each succeeding generation.

Economics is fairly clear, I would imagine. As you mentioned (I'm pretty sure it was you) the economics drives people towards hard actions. From a moral point of view, though, I'm not suggesting that petty theft (as a simple example) is universally immoral, regardless of whether it's against the law.

Education is a different matter, since I am talking about it in a holistic sense. it includes traditional cultural education, Christian religious education, secular school education, etc.
In establishing Christianity in PNG, there was a substantial impact on traditional cultural education. In some cases there was explicit points of difference forcing the population to choose one 'morality' or another. In some cases the different moral systems could sit side by side (if awkwardly). Your assumption is that I'm blaming religion for PNGs ills, but that is a horribly dichotomous way of explaining reality.

For good or ill, PNG had cultural standards and norms in place prior to extensive work by missionaries to convert the country to Christianity. Some of the old ways remain, despite the best efforts of missionaries to remove them (PNG is the witch burning capital of the world).

Why witch hunts, torture, murder on rise in Papua New Guinea

My point isn't as simple as 'Religion bad'. My point is that morality and moral standards exists everywhere, but they are not the SAME everywhere. If there is religion, or if there is multiple religions (as in PNG) or if there is no religion, still there is moral standards, and cultural norms (some of which involve morality, some of which dance around it).

Judging which of these morals is worth adhering to, and which are to be challenged is every individuals task. If, in your opinion, there is a certain set of Christian morals which are the best to follow, then so be it. This doesn't mean I think all morals are created equal. Far from it. Witch burnings are a simple example of something I'd see as horrendous, and counter to many of my moral beliefs (including around establishment of guilt). Perhaps on that one we are agreed. There are some (and I've met them) who would argue very vehemently that the action in killing a witch is eminently moral, in that, whilst unfortunate, it is necessary to sacrifice one (quite literally) to save the many.

The only difference really is the assumption by some Christians that they're version of Christian morality is 'correct' and 'objective'. But I can live with that, since I generally assume it's an honest belief. Doesn't mean I'm going to accept their version of morality though.

Being called 'immoral' because I live outside a religion is kinda laughable, but I only ever hear it from people who don't know me, so whatever. Assertions that living without religion is amoral, though, is just strange and inconsistently applied. Disagree with my morals if you like (although that might require you to know more about them that you do) but they exist. Indeed, I spend a lot of time both determining how I'm keeping to them, and educating my children. Not so different from a religious person, I guess.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No one is asserting that. There are 7 billion humans on this planet, so to say "no one" can't reasonably be intended or taken literally. And the fact that you have to reach that conclusion to make your point weakens your point, not my assertion.

I missed the part where I was taking your point literally. I didn't suggest 'no one' was a literal statement. But surely you mean 'the preponderance' or similar, right? Otherwise your point becomes hyperbole.

Nor do I assert that ONLY religion addresses the philosophical/ethical reasoning guiding the idea of moral and immoral behavior. Societies are very large and complex, so it's very likely that there will occasionally be other entities investigating the concept.

Agreed.

And also, because I am making very generalize statements, your anecdotal experiences don't really stand as a counter to the point I'm making, as your experience doesn't reflect or represent everyone else's.

True enough. That doesn't invalidate them as talking points, or as examples, though. They can remain constructive in terms of conveying meaning. They are not 'evidence' in any meaningful sense. I accept and agree with that.

This is neither here nor there, however, as the subject at hand is religion being the one entity that expends considerable time and energy considering and discussion both morality, and the philosophical and ethical imperatives that drive it. Whether or not you or I agree with their conclusions is irrelevant. Or even whether or not religious people are better or worse at following their own moral proscriptions, as that is not the point being offered, here.

Mostly that makes sense to me. However, I would quibble on one point. Expending 'time and energy' on discussions involving morality, the ethical and philosophical implications, etc, is not the same as educating people on the same. You made a good point earlier, in that having 'rules' and applying them (ie. follow this, do this, etc) has very little to do with moral and ethical considerations. At best there MAY be an underlying moral basis to a rule, but if that is neither understand nor communicated, it (basically) might as well not exist. Self reflection, and the consistent application of moral and ethical standards universally (including to oneself) would seem considerations also.
For all the discussions about ethics and morality held by religions, I have seen a great many instances where morality is reduced to a set of rules (either due to beliefs involving objective morals which are derived by God, and are axiomatic regardless of any contradiction or question, or simply due to highly dogmatic religions) or where the rules are not applied consistently and therefore seem more about power and control. I would suggest that true discussions about ethics and morality are not particularly common even in religion, as they are commonly bound by various factors limiting their scope.

The point being offered is that humans in general would rather avoid considering the morality of their own behavior than contemplate and study it's inspiration and reasoning. And it's really only their religions that impel them to do so on a regular or intellectually investigative basis.
It may be that countries with highly moral political and economic systems enable more highly moral behavior among their citizens. After all, if one doesn't need to struggle and compete with their neighbor to survive, one probably won't be inclined to engage in that sort of exhausting and counter-productive behavior. Or, it may just be that YOUR moral proclivities happen to agree with theirs, and so you presume them to be the "more moral" among us.

'More moral' is a value judgement. I'm quite open to making such a judgement (of course) but I'd simply think of it as different morals. And yes, I believe mine to be more effective, else I'd shift them. Suffice to say I picked extreme examples, but also examples of countries where I have both lived and worked for considerable periods of my life. The most stark example between New Zealand and PNG is around the treatment of women. PNG cultural norms include what I would term common mistreatment of women. PNG cultural values are passed down in all the normal ways, but include almost universally traditional values, and Christian values. That is not suggesting that Christianity is causative. Secular education, on the other hand is far less common or comprehensive. I'm not talking anecdotally, there...I can support the assertions with figures if you like, but a quick google search would confirm what I'm saying.

So...is Papuan behaviour 'moral' when it comes to women? Well...I mean...sure. In a sense. Does it match with my morals? No. Why is such behaviour so common and readily accepted in PNG? Whoo boy...that's a thesis, not a post.
In any case, my point here is that even in an overwhelmingly religious country, there is no great amount of ethical or moral consideration. Indeed, the amount of discourse on these topics is exceedingly low compared to a country like New Zealand (which is better at having open discourse than my country - Australia - imho).

In general terms, I think discussion and consideration of ethics and morals is limited. Sure, religion is one of the places it most commonly exists, but it's also one of the factors that can hamstring meaningful discussion in this area. And even where such discussion occurs within a religion, it still can transmit to believers as 'a set of rules'.

And perhaps, had you had the benefit of a moral/ethical educational experience, you would have thought of these alternative possibilities, yourself.

And here was me thinking we were having a simple exchange of ideas. Oh well, chalk up a point on the invisible chalkboard if that's important to you. But you don't actually know too much about my background.

 

[Milton Platt]

We've heard it before: you cannot be moral without God, or other similar sentiments. (A friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman, great humanist and oncologist, wrote a book called "Can We Be Good Without God?" He passed away a few years ago, sadly.)

But thinker Steven Weinberg once said something along the lines of "believing in an omniscient creator doesn't contain any inherent moral value -- you still have to decide whether to obey His commands."

Thus, think of Abraham, prepared -- at the command of God -- to slaughter his son Isaac. His own son! Now, to me, it is a spurious theological argument to suggest that, since God interfered at the last moment and supplied a goat for the purpose. Abraham, as a human being with a moral sense of his own, should have KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that to kill a child -- on anybody's "orders" -- is simply wrong.

Likewise, the Israelites under Joshua, killing all the Canaanites, except for the virgin girls who could be put to "better use." Surely the Israelites were moral agents, and could reason for themselves whether such a command from God could be the right thing to do -- could they not?

Please try to stick to the argument in question: does "divine command" outweigh your own sense of moral behaviour, or is it better you should do what God seems to command, even if you feel queasy about it?

I feel that if you subscribe to divine command, you are not actually acting out of a sense of morality. You are only following a command out of fear or hope of reward.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What right would a state have to tell me to go kill people, or do any other immoral act? An accident of birth does not give a state authority over me.

One cannot abdicate moral responsibility for one's actions. No-one else can take your sins upon himself. You are individually responsible for your every action. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense.

If my neighborhood council, city council, state or country tells me I must go attack some other group for some reason am I under any obligation to obey?

No. But tell the rest of the world that.
You’ll experience repercussions, as JW’s have.

Another subject, I know. But the point is...if you blame God for His actions in protecting His people, you should blame the nation’s even more.
They can’t resurrect the lives that were taken. God can...and will.
Acts of the Apostles 24:15.