Ethics Without Religion

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:20 pm

A good read---------------- agree?? disagree?

Philip Kitcher: Ethics Without Religion | berfrois

:-3

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:25 am

I found a few questionable segments relating to the development of societies. Not that it was wrong, just that it only looked at the issue from one perspective and from the stance of one discipline. It also seemed to be mistitled. I didn't think that religious connection to morality was the main focus of the article.

The thesis is "Despite this [questioning of religion as the foundation of ethics], philosophers have yearned for a different source of absolute ethical authority, substituting the dictates of reason for any divine imperative, seeking, like Kant, the “moral law within.”

The author uses "despite this" rather oddly. The summary concludes "We have inherited a complex ethical practice from those who came before us, and we take it to be authoritative except where we can find ways of improving it." This implies that the author finds religion to be a socially trusted source for ethics that people readily adjust if/when they find improvements.

Interestingly, the very last thought we're left with is: "For the reinforcement and extension of sympathy is, after all, where the human ethical project began, when our ancestors became, for the first time, human." It's interesting because a recent study shows that rich people have less empathy yet our social morality is dictated by the ruling elite... mostly wealthy people.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:30 am

Glancing over the article a second time I think it's less flawed by poor communication than by having far too much he wanted to say in too short a space and he tried to fit it all in, taking away from the coherence.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:26 am

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the belief that religion - or god's commands - was the basis for ethical behaviour was not only nonsense it also does an awful lot of harm. So in general I would agree with the author. The thing is you will not be able to have a rational discussion about it with a fundamentalist of any persuasion.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:12 pm

Without G-d. there is no right or wrong.

In other words, I am not into moral relativism.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:37 pm

tude dog;1481455 wrote: Without G-d. there is no right or wrong.

In other words, I am not into moral relativism.These appear to be two very different statements. "Without G-d[,] there is no right or wrong." is a dogmatic statement, while "In other words, I am not into moral relativism." is a statement of opinion.

Perhaps saying something like: "for me, without G-d, there is no right or wrong; in other words, I am not into moral relativism[.]" would be more understandable.

That said, your G-d hasn't done a very through job of defining morality, that's been done mostly from the pulpit by his man servants and obeyed blindly by the followers because they've been robbed of their understanding that they themselves have the capacity to make moral decisions.

Morality is not G-d given, it's been selected for over the course of time and then codified into laws and rules as per group preference. Many of those morals selected for in the past are now being "deselected" if you will, because the times demand a newer more contemporary set. It's called evolution. Obstinate resistance doesn't delay anything, it only makes one's morals less selectable as time moves forward.

Argue against the newer model all you like, I encourage it, because the more you do the more clearly people who do think for themselves can reason their way through the maze.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:50 pm

Ahso!;1481458 wrote: These appear to be two very different statements. "Without G-d[,] there is no right or wrong." is a dogmatic statement,

Yea, it is.

Ahso!;1481458 wrote: while "In other words, I am not into moral relativism." is a statement of opinion.

Well, yea, it is.

Ahso!;1481458 wrote: Perhaps saying something like: "for me, without G-d, there is no right or wrong; in other words, I am not into moral relativism[.]" would be more understandable.

I stand by what I wrote.

Ahso!;1481458 wrote: That said, your G-d hasn't done a very through job of defining morality, that's been done mostly from the pulpit by his man servants and obeyed blindly by the followers because they've been robbed of their understanding that they themselves have the capacity to make moral decisions.

Morality is not G-d given, it's been selected for over the course of time and then codified into laws and rules as per group preference. Many of those morals selected for in the past are now being "deselected" if you will, because the times demand a newer more contemporary set. It's called evolution. Obstinate resistance doesn't delay anything, it only makes one's morals less selectable as time moves forward.

Argue against the newer model all you like, I encourage it, because the more you do the more clearly people who do think for themselves can reason their way through the maze.

Like you pointed out what I said is a dogmatic statement.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:39 pm

Most religions have it backwards.

Ethics were the beginning of God, rather than the other way around.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:41 pm

LarsMac;1481494 wrote: Most religions have it backwards.

Ethics were the beginning of God, rather than the other way around.Forever finding a way to invoke God. You might be the most staunch religious apologist I've ever communicated with.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:04 pm

Ahso!;1481530 wrote: Forever finding a way to invoke God. You might be the most staunch religious apologist I've ever communicated with.

Why, thank you.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:51 am

LarsMac;1481494 wrote: Most religions have it backwards.

Ethics were the beginning of God, rather than the other way around.
That would explain "Dogma" (Am God).

Right or Wrong has nothing to do with Religion. It is to do with Humanity & Sociology. Humans are, by nature, a sociological species & in order for such a society to survive there have to be certain rules. These are rules which were laid down by nature long before they were penned by Man, and attributed to some imaginary deity.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:07 am

I imagine that sexual selection among hominids always included any one or combination of the following (though the list is by no means complete).

1) that face/body looks appealing, I want to shag that.

2) that is a nice way he/she has, I want to shag that.

3) that is a tough individual, I want to shag that.

4) that is a fun individual, I want to shag that.

5) he/she is very kind, I want to shag that.

6) what a great provider he/she would make, I want to shag that.

7) what an ass, he forces me to shag him.

8) what a good nurturer, I want to shag that.

In the movie The Homesman Hillary Swank plays the main character who clearly possesses the most tools for survival purposes in that setting, yet she cannot find a mate because we learn early on that she's as plain as an old tin pail and she's bossy, while the other three main female characters are pretty, yet cannot survive the wild. In the end the Swank character has committed suicide and the other three are rescued by her, Jones and a religious group to survive. The males in the movie survive by the skin of their teeth through various means yet on the brink of insanity. Of course the traits of the survivors are passed along while the most complete set of "good" traits are lost.

Watching that movie made it easy for me to understand how America has become the place it is today.

Tommy Lee Jones gets the selection process and survival.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:12 am

More to the point - "I'm feeling really horny. He / She has a slot. I want to shag that".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:15 am

Yes, that too. As I said, the list is not complete.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:23 pm

tude dog;1481455 wrote: Without G-d. there is no right or wrong.

In other words, I am not into moral relativism.

I have to disagree with that one - it's totally possible to formulate and keep a moral code without any reference to God.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:30 pm

Is "right or wrong" morality? I'm hesitant to buy into that one myself. Right/wrong is more about control than it is about morality, I'm inclined to think.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:32 pm

Ahso!;1481581 wrote: Is "right or wrong" morality? I'm hesitant to buy into that one myself. Right/wrong is more about control than it is about morality, I'm inclined to think.

OK, I mis-spoke, its a code of ethics rather than a moral code.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1481582 wrote: OK, I mis-spoke, its a code of ethics rather than a moral code.I wasn't dogging on you, I was merely thinking out loud, sort of. I sometimes am confused at the difference between ethics and morals.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:40 pm

Ahso!;1481583 wrote: I wasn't dogging on you, I was merely thinking out loud, sort of. I sometimes am confused at the difference between ethics and morals.

Morals are personal whereas ethics are laid down by society.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:42 pm

My dictionary defines both morals and ethics the same. Both based on right and wrong. To me though, right and wrong is more about control, as I said earlier.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:42 pm

Bryn Mawr;1481584 wrote: Morals are personal whereas ethics are laid down by society.Ah, thanks.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:16 pm

Ahso!;1481586 wrote: Ah, thanks.
Right & Wrong is also not a case of Black or White.

In the West we see Sharia Law & enforcement of Islam as being Wrong & Inexcusable.

In the East, however, they see our more liberal ways, permitting the denial of God as being Wrong & Inexcusable.

Right? Wrong? Ethics? Morals? How do you define any of them?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:35 am

Bryn Mawr;1481579 wrote: I have to disagree with that one - it's totally possible to formulate and keep a moral code without any reference to God.

No problem there buddy.

It is done all the time.

My comment should have been more artful in that just what, who, logic, theory etc. and so forth provides the guiding principle?

All said and done, I go by my religion and tradition’s.

By far, not an answer to all questions.

Anyone ever watch Kung Fu (TV series)?

Follow your own path.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:55 am

FourPart;1481590 wrote: Right & Wrong is also not a case of Black or White.

In the West we see Sharia Law & enforcement of Islam as being Wrong & Inexcusable.

In the East, however, they see our more liberal ways, permitting the denial of God as being Wrong & Inexcusable.

Right? Wrong? Ethics? Morals? How do you define any of them?

Religious people are often rudiculed becauuse we have standards of morality and etiches.

No you ask Right? Wrong? Ethics? Morals? How do you define any of them?

Who's your Guru?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:30 pm

You do not need religion to have a code of ethics but religion can certainly give you a twisted one and convince you to do things which any moral person would not.

If you need to god to give you your ethics then you actually have none you are merely following a set of behaviours someone has told you that is what god wants. It's a refusal to take responsibility for your actions. Worse your belief in god allows you to justify any action as being that demanded by god up to and including the killing of anyone that disagrees it makes you a blind follower of whoever you have decided speaks for god.

Quite frankly imo anyone who uses god or his religion to govern his behaviour lacks the inteligence or moral fibre to think for themselves.

posted by tude dog

Religious people are often rudiculed becauuse we have standards of morality and etiches.

Religius people are often ruidiculed because of the bizarre standards of morality and ethics. Take the islamic state for instance are you seriously suggesting their standards of morality are justified because they come from a belief in god?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:14 pm

You speak as if Religion is a monolithic establishment.

gmc;1481636 wrote: If you need to god to give you your ethics then you actually have none you are merely following a set of behaviours someone has told you that is what god wants. It's a refusal to take responsibility for your actions.

Oh no, not all. I take total responsibility for my actions.

gmc;1481636 wrote: Worse your belief in god allows you to justify any action as being that demanded by god up to and including the killing of anyone that disagrees it makes you a blind follower of whoever you have decided speaks for god.
Not in my tradition.

gmc;1481636 wrote: Quite frankly imo anyone who uses god or his religion to govern his behaviour lacks the inteligence or moral fibre to think for themselves.
What you don’t get is thinking for myself brought me to the conclusions which govern my moral ethical life.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:19 pm

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:46 pm

Posted by tude dog

What you don’t get is thinking for myself brought me to the conclusions which govern my moral ethical life.

So do you mean your moral code does not come from god?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:50 pm

gmc;1481749 wrote: Posted by tude dog

So do you mean your moral code does not come from god?
Sounds about right to me. I have a very high ethical & moral code. God certainly plays no part in my life, and I would consider it an insult for anyone to claim otherwise. I am what I am because I say so. Not some imaginary being. To say otherwise says that I don't have a will of my own.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:29 pm

It seems to me that in general people are born with an innate desire to know and do what is right. Culture also plays a part in this as well. What is wrong in one society is right in another.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:39 pm

tude dog;1481634 wrote: Religious people are often rudiculed becauuse we have standards of morality and etiches.

I don't know what etiches is, but your standard of morality includes racist & homophobic remarks said with ease. Those are mighty Low Standards, tude. Lose it, or your standard of morality is laughable. "do onto others", etc. Raise your standards to admirable levels.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:23 pm

AnneBoleyn;1481768 wrote: I don't know what etiches is, but your standard of morality includes racist & homophobic remarks said with ease. Those are mighty Low Standards, tude. Lose it, or your standard of morality is laughable. "do onto others", etc. Raise your standards to admirable levels.

Golly, I don't know what etiches is eiter.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:27 am

tude dog;1481775 wrote: Golly, I don't know what etiches is eiter.

Such a cutey pie. What's eiter? Similar to etiches. mmmmmmmmmmm

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:31 am

AnneBoleyn;1481768 wrote: I don't know what etiches is, but your standard of morality includes racist & homophobic remarks said with ease. Those are mighty Low Standards, tude. Lose it, or your standard of morality is laughable. "do onto others", etc. Raise your standards to admirable levels.

tude dog;1481775 wrote: Golly, I don't know what etiches is eiter.

AnneBoleyn;1481786 wrote: Such a cutey pie. What's eiter? Similar to etiches. mmmmmmmmmmm

Don't Jew both belong to the same religion?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:47 am

Jew you? I know you're not. Yes, we Jew. Doesn't mean much except if you're a nazi & I know you're not that either.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:05 pm

tude dog;1481775 wrote: Golly, I don't know what etiches is eiter.

I'm with yolu tude dog - I can soell I cab tyoe just not both at the sine time

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:43 pm

gmc;1481799 wrote: I'm with yolu tude dog - I can soell I cab tyoe just not both at the sine time

:wah: