Morality, Religion and Atheism

[IVC]

I don't usually come to this subforum, but I do have something I would like to discuss and hear some opinions from those who post here and are deeper students of the religion than just casual observers.

My main philosophical question is about the concept of morality, especially in the "urban atheist" environment that seems to be so prevalent these days, particularly among the adolescents. Does the morality exist outside religion? Can it exist even in principle without a higher power as the source of authority?

The problem happens if I talk to someone who is a "militant atheist," making fun of religion in general, using phrases such as "man in the sky" or "flying spaghetti monster" to demean the very idea of any religious belief, only to come back and try to push a set of "moral norms" that he/she believes in. It's usually about environment, animals and human virtue signaling. I would always ask them not about the details of the moral norms they accepted as such, but about the authority for the norms that they have so arbitrarily picked. In essence, I turn it back on them to justify the core source of their moral authority without a higher power they so vehemently mocked just moments ago.

It almost always goes from the shock that they have to justify it in the first place (they claim it's obvious), to inability to come up with a logical explanation of why their arbitrary norms and morality should be binding on anyone else in the society, to ultimately declaring a hedonistic position that it's what they feel/believe in (there is that word "belief" again), and everyone who disagrees will be ostracized. At that time, I point out to them that they have not only discovered the need for a higher power as the source of human morality, but also that they are centuries late discovering the religious intolerance - the act of despising those who don't share the same beliefs, in this case the arbitrary moral norms. Incidentally, this also fits the adage that "the right believes the left is misguided, the left believes the right is evil." The "evil" part being not sharing their arbitrary and mutating "moral norms" and instead defining morality based on religion. Certainly anyone not toeing their line must be seen as immoral, evil, despicable, deplorable, etc., which is how they see religious people.

Which brings me to the main question. Can an atheist be a moral person? Not whether an atheist can act in a way that we would consider moral, but can an atheist even define the concept of morality. It appears that it's akin to asking whether an atheist can be a religious person. A contradiction in terms.

The majority of people who are not devout tend to want to be "good people" and want to do "good." They don't want to be "bad" or "do bad things," yet there seems to be no way to define "good," "bad," "moral," "immoral," "virtue" or "sin" without the higher power and faith. The science and nature certainly don't provide such concepts. These concepts are uniquely human, where we use restraint because we believe it is the moral thing to do. By contrast, nature and science are cold and brutal. Animals do things to each other that we wouldn't find acceptable. Science is a set of facts, methods and theories that describe the nature, without emotion or any other human trait.

Am I overthinking this? Any input is welcome.

[Mottmcfly]

I’m an atheist. I believe I am quite moral. I feel no need to mock anyone’s religious views.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Mottmcfly

I’m an atheist. I believe I am quite moral. I feel no need to mock anyone’s religious views.

Where does your morality come from if it's not faith-based, as in "you believe this is what morality is"? I'm genuinely interested.

[sonofeugene]

I, too, do not believe in god. But you would find me a very moral person. Religion is not necessary.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by sonofeugene

I, too, do not believe in god. But you would find me a very moral person. Religion is not necessary.

How do you define morality? Alternatively, how do you justify to those you deem immoral that your viewpoint/morality is the "correct one?"

[billvau]

Everyone can be moral. God has given everyone a conscience. Paul wrote to the Romans:

Roman 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

What this says is that everyone is born with a God-given conscience that knows right (God's right - "the work of the law" means the essence, core meaning of God's right and wrong) from wrong. You innately know when something is right or wrong.

But, the Bible also teaches that our conscience is programmable. IOW, you can reinforce it AND/OR go against it over and over until you "sear" it (1 Timothy 4:2) - i.e. shut it down in a particular area of life. Hitler became a cold-blooded killer of millions, but could still love his dog, his girlfriend, etc. He had seared his conscience towards Jews, etc.

The good people of the world have reinforced their consciences with consistent good moral behavior and enjoy the good feeling their conscience gives them for doing good.

Now, many reading this don't believe in the God of the Bible, the Christian God, and so believe that they are the ultimate source of their good behavior. But, as a Christian, I look to the Bible for truth, and this is how I know how God has given all mankind a control over their behavior!

Blessings!

[1911RONIN]

Most atheists live as if the ten commandments are true. Well, the latter six anyway.

Atheists can attempt to ground morality via any number of moral theories.

1. Ethical Egoism
2. Utilitarianism.
3. Deontological ethics
4. Natural Law

Most are relativists of some sort. So, they can't or won't attempt to ground their concept of right and wrong.

All of the above theories have serious philosophical problems, though.

What is fascinating is the moral fundamentalism that comes from anti-theists. They have no tincture of skepticism regarding their own moral point of view; that they could be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by sonofeugene

I, too, do not believe in god. But you would find me a very moral person. Religion is not necessary.

I believe you. In fact, you probably put some religious people to shame. But how do you know at any point you are acting morally? What is the standard or criteria?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

the thing is, all the folks that claim religion isn't necessary for morality have grown up in a judeo-christian society founded on religious based standards.

they really have no idea what the absence of religion would be like, and i don't either.

[Grobie]

Religion and morality isn't mutually exclusive. I was raised Buddhist, but I am not by any means religious. I question everything including the existence of a higher power. I guess that can be best described as agnostic. Morality is a byproduct of society. Society as whole, regardless of religious views or lack thereof, has at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist. Obviously, history has shown those guidelines are seldom followed. Whether or not those guidelines were influenced by religion is irrelevant. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion. This is just my opinion.
I believe myself to be a morally sound person, though it isn't derived from my fear of god, heaven, or hell. For me, it comes from within. I look at myself and I ask, am I proud of the person I am. Can my children be proud of the man I am, not only as a parent, but a human being. If not, what can I do to change it?

[bugsy714]

I would post to you that morality is more of a societal norming force that allows humans to live in cohesive groups

For example we have to decide which behaviors are acceptable in society and which behaviors are detrimental to society. Typically the morality follows that construct

For example the 10 commandments are just a list of the things humans have to stop doing if society will have any hope of functioning.

The tenants of morality are frequently espouse by the religious but less frequently practiced. Likewise I know very moral atheists and very immoral religious folks who just ask for forgiveness after they do horrible things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

i think religion is an evolutionary element that keeps people from killing the alphas once the advent of tools and weapons that made them vulnerable to lesser and inferior, and sometimes defective specimens.

[IronsightsRifleman]

Look around you, morality is whatever people say it is.
Jesus told us...
"Only God is good." --Mark 10:18
And
"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." - - John 15:19.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by theLBC

i think religion is an evolutionary element that keeps people from killing the alphas once the advent of tools and weapons that made them vulnerable to lesser and inferior, and sometimes defective specimens.

It is definitely a control mechanism for society. It 100% benefits the ruling class and has been used as a tool to maintain control for thousands of years

It also benefit society in that it creates a functional construct for people to live. I don’t think any of us wanted to go live in fear The Walking Dead Country so it’s good to have all of the simpletons think that they will face retribution from some heavenly overseer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bohoki]

i am a follower of jesus

but i do not believe it takes religion to be courteous

and i've seen many religious persons who are discourteous

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by Grobie

Religion and morality isn't mutually exclusive. I was raised Buddhist, but I am not by any means religious. I question everything including the existence of a higher power. I guess that can be best described as agnostic. Morality is a byproduct of society. Society as whole, regardless of religious views or lack thereof, has at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist. Obviously, history has shown those guidelines are seldom followed. Whether or not those guidelines were influenced by religion is irrelevant. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion. This is just my opinion.
I believe myself to be a morally sound person, though it isn't derived from my fear of god, heaven, or hell. For me, it comes from within. I look at myself and I ask, am I proud of the person I am. Can my children be proud of the man I am, not only as a parent, but a human being. If not, what can I do to change it?

But what makes anything you do right or wrong? You might say your morals, but what makes your morals any better or worse than the next person's? Can you see the problem here? If you say society, that is an abstraction, not a norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by IronsightsRifleman

Look around you, morality is whatever people say it is.
Jesus told us...
"Only God is good." --Mark 10:18
And
"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." - - John 15:19.

Which people? Why them or their morality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grobie]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

But what makes anything you do right or wrong? You might say your morals, but what makes your morals any better or worse than the next person's? Can you see the problem here? If you say society, that is an abstraction, not a norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I would post to you that morality is more of a societal norming force that allows humans to live in cohesive groups

For example we have to decide which behaviors are acceptable in society and which behaviors are detrimental to society. Typically the morality follows that construct

For example the 10 commandments are just a list of the things humans have to stop doing if society will have any hope of functioning.

The tenants of morality are frequently espouse by the religious but less frequently practiced. Likewise I know very moral atheists and very immoral religious folks who just ask for forgiveness after they do horrible things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How does society go about deciding moral norms? And is that what makes anything wrong?

Is murder wrong in virtue of an implicit democratic process? Or is murder wrong because it is a deep infraction against an invisible order?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by Grobie

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

Logically, then, no one and no action is right or wrong. If you believe rape is good for you, then it's good for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billvau]

Originally Posted by Grobie

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

Would it be wrong for someone to kill you (Grobie), to kill your wife, to kill your kids? Would any of those be wrong?

[Picatinny]

Boy do I like this question. I have considered this for hours and hours. I am an atheist, but I have sought out many different religious concepts for inspiration because I realize the flaw that atheism can bring. YYou have hit the nail on the head, there is a hole in the logic. I think the person who mentioned relativism as a major component to the modern atheist was really recognizing the problem in a nutshell( I realized this might not be the point they were making). This to me is What happens to me if I come across somebody from another place who has similar feeling that they are justified in their moralism but they are at odds with my perspective of specific behavior that is decent and what is right. Our country here in the United States has always been recognized by all of the court systems and all of the moral Justice police has being a Christian Nation. There are many who want to strip that component in order that everybody be seen more equally. The problem, like you say is it only leaves law and no actual moral bearing to work from. Next thing you know there are people that say well you're innocent until proven guilty, therefore you have broken no moral rule until you are proven guilty of breaking the law. I don't think this is a very slippery slope with logic, I think it is a natural foregone conclusion for people with no morality to justify their own behavior as being right and virtuous as long as it serves them well. The same behavior is even worse if it's somebody who has it some kind of religious conviction because then they feel as though they have all the weight of power of all the religious zealots behind them as well. I think in a nutshell humanity is bad (flawed) or at least prone to lots and lots of mistakes before they learn their lesson, and that is why religion came to be for most all walks of life in the first place.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

How does society go about deciding moral norms? And is that what makes anything wrong?

Is murder wrong in virtue of an implicit democratic process? Or is murder wrong because it is a deep infraction against an invisible order?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose murder is wrong because it is a harmful thing to do to another human being and if you want to live around other human beings in a cohesive group you cannot do harmful things to them

These are more cooperative rules that allow us to work together and build things that are greater than anyone human being could do on their own

I would pose that the above force to maintain the group dynamic and harmony is what has been personified into God or our human concept of a higher power


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

I suppose murder is wrong because it is a harmful thing to do to another human being and if you want to live around other human beings in a cohesive group you cannot do harmful things to them

These are more cooperative rules that allow us to work together and build things that are greater than anyone human being could do on their own

I would pose that the above force to maintain the group dynamic and harmony is what has been personified into God or our human concept of a higher power


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So it is wrong to harm another human being? And it’s wrong on the basis that it undermines cooperation for a common good? Is this what families lament when their child is the victim of this sort violence? The loss of the cooperative spirit.

Moreover, sociologically, groups cooperate but also compete. It might be advantageous to one group to murder another group. So, murder might acceptable if it maintains the well being of my group, even if it’s at the expense of yours.

Another point: is it wrong for any human being to harm any other human being? If it applies to all human beings, then we have a universal moral norm. And if non-harm has no exceptions, then it is absolute. And if it’s an absolute, did we create it? Or is it discovered?

Alternatively, if it is not universal, then it follows that harm might be good or bad depending on the person, but this would undermine cooperation, as you stated earlier.

And to your last point, ideas come from experiences, according to empiricists. How did the idea of God come to be? How did humans create it? It easy to see that humans create ideas like sea monsters and unicorns and space craft, but these ideas are just common experiences of ordinary objects and animals reconfigured in new ways. What objects and experiences led to God concept creation?

This sort of “humans created God” idea is a rather cheap hypothesis, and often adopted without explanation, which is needed since it does not fit within the ordinary framework of concept creation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CVShooter]

Even animals show morality & moral standards. They also show violations to their moral codes, just like we do. I suggest reading THE BONOBO AND THE ATHEIST, an interesting book.

Something to consider: is human morality derived top-down (moral codes given by a divine or other structure & then we adopt them)? Or bottom-up (naturally part of our social nature & only spelled out by religion)?

I'd say the latter. But if "God" is a metaphor for what is good, what is part of our essential being as humans and what best expresses our better nature, then maybe it's a moot point.

[billvau]

Once you decide that one thing is wrong, i.e. always wrong, you now have an "absolute." You cannot have absolutes in a world based on evolutionary theory because there is nothing that sets/creates/maintains an absolute.

So, if your cosmology is evolution, then no absolutes. Murder is permitted. Warning: you better be able to defend yourself against those who disagree with you.

[Kokopelli]

One must define morality. Moral by what standard? Moral compared to whom? Is an Athiest moral, compared to Hitler or compared to Mother Teresa?

The standard of morality and goodness is Jesus Christ. How does __________ (insert name of any human here) compare to Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God? Compared to Jesus, there is no comparison. We are all wretched, lost, naked and blind compared to Him.

Romans 3:10b-12

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

[Grobie]

Originally Posted by billvau

Would it be wrong for someone to kill you (Grobie), to kill your wife, to kill your kids? Would any of those be wrong?

This applies to 1911Ronin too.
Both of you apparently misunderstand me. Refer to my earlier statement, "..society at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist." Society essentially dictates morality. Whether or not religion had any influence on it is irrelevant. But to answer your question, it is possible for someone to believe that killing me or or my family isn't wrong. Obviously, society has agreed that is morally wrong.(At least in the US and amongst our close allies) Now, if someone deemed it right and had intent to harm me or my family, I in turn will find it morally right to defend myself even at the cost of killing said person(s). Others may disagree and say the taking of a life under any circumstance is immoral.. so again I say, subjective. And I repeat religion and (good) morals ARE NOT mutually exclusive.

[Grobie]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

Logically, then, no one and no action is right or wrong. If you believe rape is good for you, then it's good for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no logic here. Subjectively speaking, you may believe rape is good for you. That doesn't mean I believe rape is good for you. This is due to my set of morals being different from yours. With that said, WE as a society has agreed that rape isn't good for anyone, regardless or race, sex, or creed.

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by CVShooter

Even animals show morality & moral standards. They also show violations to their moral codes, just like we do. I suggest reading THE BONOBO AND THE ATHEIST, an interesting book.

Something to consider: is human morality derived top-down (moral codes given by a divine or other structure & then we adopt them)? Or bottom-up (naturally part of our social nature & only spelled out by religion)?

I'd say the latter. But if "God" is a metaphor for what is good, what is part of our essential being as humans and what best expresses our better nature, then maybe it's a moot point.

Exactly we have hundreds of thousands of years of cooperative living with other organisms bred into us. The groups that were cohesive and could work together were successful and the others got naturally selected

Animals show many of the same traits primarily primates. Humans like to put themselves on a pedestal but I think that’s the arrogance of being the smartest guy in the room

Mythology has been a part of cohesive human cultures as far as recorded time is concerned. Recently discovered civilizations that date back the furthest seem to be part of the death cult believing that there would be an afterlife. It’s an interesting concept that I think stems from being self-aware. Knowing that we will die and having Brain power to ponder what happens to our consciousness once the life has left the body.

I always wonder why did God wait so long to reveal himself? Early religions date back to 10,000 years or more before Jesus showed up on the scene was he just enjoying the **** show up to that point? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by Grobie

There is no logic here. Subjectively speaking, you may believe rape is good for you. That doesn't mean I believe rape is good for you. This is due to my set of morals being different from yours. With that said, WE as a society has agreed that rape isn't good for anyone, regardless or race, sex, or creed.

Again, there is nothing that is actually wrong - wrong independent of one’s beliefs - on your view, only people having beliefs of right and wrong? So on your view, rape isn’t actually wrong, you only believe it to be wrong?

“We as a society” strikes me as a meaningless statement. Who is the “we”? Society? Society doesn’t believe anything; it’s not a person with values and beliefs. Society as a collection of individuals makes sense, ergo morality is a kind of democratic process, on your view.

But is it the agreeing on the wrongness of an action what makes it wrong, or something else like harm, or injustice?

You seemed to espouse a version of either individual or cultural relativism, two views of morality that are desperately flawed.

1. Each view implies that a person or society can never be wrong, because one would need to have an external standard by which to measure their moral beliefs.

2. Moral progress is impossible. On your View, slave owners were justified in owning slaves in early America, but not justified in owning them now, slaveowning being neither right nor wrong in actuality, but only dependent n society.

3. Criticizing other cultures or persons for having horrific moral positions is impossible, because they are neither more right or wrong than you are.

4. On your view, it is impossible that the constitution outlines timeless principles. If the majority of Americans viewed gun ownership as morally wrong, you’d be morally wrong for owning them.

5. How my moral rights really depend on where I am on the globe at a particular time in history? It seems the idea of rights is a useful fiction.

I could go on, but the point is that your view of morality doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

So it is wrong to harm another human being? And it’s wrong on the basis that it undermines cooperation for a common good? Is this what families lament when their child is the victim of this sort violence? The loss of the cooperative spirit.

Moreover, sociologically, groups cooperate but also compete. It might be advantageous to one group to murder another group. So, murder might acceptable if it maintains the well being of my group, even if it’s at the expense of yours.

Another point: is it wrong for any human being to harm any other human being? If it applies to all human beings, then we have a universal moral norm. And if non-harm has no exceptions, then it is absolute. And if it’s an absolute, did we create it? Or is it discovered?

Alternatively, if it is not universal, then it follows that harm might be good or bad depending on the person, but this would undermine cooperation, as you stated earlier.

And to your last point, ideas come from experiences, according to empiricists. How did the idea of God come to be? How did humans create it? It easy to see that humans create ideas like sea monsters and unicorns and space craft, but these ideas are just common experiences of ordinary objects and animals reconfigured in new ways. What objects and experiences led to God concept creation?

This sort of “humans created God” idea is a rather cheap hypothesis, and often adopted without explanation, which is needed since it does not fit within the ordinary framework of concept creation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is a lot to unpack there let me oh my best to do the dance with you :-)

Societies and cultures have their own rules these are typically the rules that maintain harmony amongst the members. Actions deemed unacceptable within that society are usually addressed and offenders held accountable. The goal is not to uphold some sort of abstraction of heavenly morality but rather to maintain harmony within the society



Human societies are almost constantly at war with one another because of the limited resources on this planet. That means if it’s going to be us or them frequently we will choose them as the people who must die. Even though name one nation that doesn’t get involved in some sort of a dispute over resources? These disputes are frequently settled with violence

The United States as a Judeo Christian nation has been warring constantly since it’s inception. In the Vietnam war we killed about 1 million Vietnamese people and last about 10% of that number of our own people might actually be closer to 5% can’t remember the exact number. So there’s an example of a nation following a religious belief and founding yet still using violence to its advantage

Then we get into the concept of right and wrong. This is a human construct because ultimately what is right and wrong is dictated by the society in which a person exists. In Fiji it was common practice to kill and eat your enemies well in other parts of the world this would be the most deplorable act imaginable. If you were to live within that for G and culture eating someone would not be wrong to you in the classical sense so there is no absolute for a right and wrong

Excuse my typos I’m too lazy to go back and edit them out :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

There is a lot to unpack there let me oh my best to do the dance with you :-)

Societies and cultures have their own rules these are typically the rules that maintain harmony amongst the members. Actions deemed unacceptable within that society are usually addressed and offenders held accountable. The goal is not to uphold some sort of abstraction of heavenly morality but rather to maintain harmony within the society



Human societies are almost constantly at war with one another because of the limited resources on this planet. That means if it’s going to be us or them frequently we will choose them as the people who must die. Even though name one nation that doesn’t get involved in some sort of a dispute over resources? These disputes are frequently settled with violence

The United States as a Judeo Christian nation has been warring constantly since it’s inception. In the Vietnam war we killed about 1 million Vietnamese people and last about 10% of that number of our own people might actually be closer to 5% can’t remember the exact number. So there’s an example of a nation following a religious belief and founding yet still using violence to its advantage

Then we get into the concept of right and wrong. This is a human construct because ultimately what is right and wrong is dictated by the society in which a person exists. In Fiji it was common practice to kill and eat your enemies well in other parts of the world this would be the most deplorable act imaginable. If you were to live within that for G and culture eating someone would not be wrong to you in the classical sense so there is no absolute for a right and wrong

Excuse my typos I’m too lazy to go back and edit them out :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for entertaining my points.

Differences between societies are not vast. You'd be hard pressed to find a culture that believes murder is okay. They may disagree about what kinds of actions are murders, but not disagree about murder being wrong.

In addition, the last paragraph commits the is/ought fallacy. Just because a society is dictating moral beliefs, it doesn't follow that it ought to do so. Morality is about what ought to be done. What is being done, by your lights, does not mean that it ought to be done, or that morality is thus grounded.

But you also didn't answer my question. Does social harmony being disrupted get at the grave nature of murder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Reading my own nonsense and I believe I’ve come to the conclusion that a societies concept of God closely mirrors it’s on societal rules or morality whatever you want to call it. God is the shining example of all of the traits that a model citizen would have.

When you look at it that way you see why we have clashes of cultures both of whom claim to be fighting for their version of GodAnd both of whom feel they are morally superior to the infidel


For the record I consider myself to be agnostic I haven’t seen enough evidence one way or another to make a decision. I do live in a Judeo Christian society and import those values to my children. It’s amazing how many of the lessons in the Bible are useful even to a person who is not convinced of the divinity of the book.

[Grobie]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

Again, there is nothing that is actually wrong - wrong independent of one’s beliefs - on your view, only people having beliefs of right and wrong? So on your view, rape isn’t actually wrong, you only believe it to be wrong?

“We as a society” strikes me as a meaningless statement. Who is the “we”? Society? Society doesn’t believe anything; it’s not a person with values and beliefs. Society as a collection of individuals makes sense, ergo morality is a kind of democratic process, on your view.

But is it the agreeing on the wrongness of an action what makes it wrong, or something else like harm, or injustice?

You seemed to espouse a version of either individual or cultural relativism, two views of morality that are desperately flawed.

1. Each view implies that a person or society can never be wrong, because one would need to have an external standard by which to measure their moral beliefs.

2. Moral progress is impossible. On your View, slave owners were justified in owning slaves in early America, but not justified in owning them now, slaveowning being neither right nor wrong in actuality, but only dependent n society.

3. Criticizing other cultures or persons for having horrific moral positions is impossible, because they are neither more right or wrong than you are.

4. On your view, it is impossible that the constitution outlines timeless principles. If the majority of Americans viewed gun ownership as morally wrong, you’d be morally wrong for owning them.

5. How my moral rights really depend on where I am on the globe at a particular time in history? It seems the idea of rights is a useful fiction.

I could go on, but the point is that your view of morality doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
First of all, I assumed when I said "society" it was a given that it was meant as a collection of individuals in a community albeit neighborhood, state, country, etc. considering that is exactly what it's definition is.

From your comments, I gather you believe morals are something that is immovable, unchangeable, and the same across the board.
Morality whether good or bad are inherently up to the individual to determine. But when you have several individuals, i.e. a nation (an example of a society) of people whom, lets say for arguments sake, agree that rape and murder is immoral. Then the consensus in this society is that rape and murder is immoral. Although, you and I are a part of this society we don't necessarily have to agree with the consensus. Let's say I believe murder is moral and rape is bad. You believe murder is bad and rape is good. I believe you have bad morals and you believe I have bad morals. We each believe that our own morals are good. We disagree. Since the consensus is that both are bad, then our society as a whole believe we have bad morals. That doesn't mean we have to agree. It's the consensus that we as a society of individuals have agreed upon. The whole point of this soliloquy is that we as individuals have our own sets of morals that might not always completely align with the society we are members of. I hate to break it to you, but there are already many members in our society who believe gun owners are immoral. It doesn't necessarily make us immoral in society, just in their eyes. Just as many in our society believe homosexuality is immoral. Or that people who don't believe in god are immoral.. You and I can go on and on, but this whole debate has become a moot point. I will reiterate good and bad are subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. Morality is subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. The influence of religion on morality is irrelevant as evidenced by our community here on CG. Many of us are religious and may believe in a different god than others. Many are athiest and do not believe in the existence of god. And many of us are agnostic whom questions the existence of god. Although there are many points of morality we agree on, there are also plenty we may not agree on.

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Reading my own nonsense and I believe I’ve come to the conclusion that a societies concept of God closely mirrors it’s on societal rules or morality whatever you want to call it. God is the shining example of all of the traits that a model citizen would have.

When you look at it that way you see why we have clashes of cultures both of whom claim to be fighting for their version of GodAnd both of whom I feel they are morally superior to the infidel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pretty close imo.

god is the personification of the ideal (alpha).

[Grobie]

Originally Posted by bugsy714

Reading my own nonsense and I believe I’ve come to the conclusion that a societies concept of God closely mirrors it’s on societal rules or morality whatever you want to call it. God is the shining example of all of the traits that a model citizen would have.

When you look at it that way you see why we have clashes of cultures both of whom claim to be fighting for their version of GodAnd both of whom feel they are morally superior to the infidel


For the record I consider myself to be agnostic I haven’t seen enough evidence one way or another to make a decision. I do live in a Judeo Christian society and import those values to my children. It’s amazing how many of the lessons in the Bible are useful even to a person who is not convinced of the divinity of the book.

I agree. Obviously, religion has influenced our society, my whole point in regards to religion and morality is that they are not mutually exclusive. Some how that went off the rails

[bugsy714]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

Thanks for entertaining my points.

Differences between societies are not vast. You'd be hard pressed to find a culture that believes murder is okay. They may disagree about what kinds of actions are murders, but not disagree about murder being wrong.

In addition, the last paragraph commits the is/ought fallacy. Just because a society is dictating moral beliefs, it doesn't follow that it ought to do so. Morality is about what ought to be done. What is being done, by your lights, does not mean that it ought to be done, or that morality is thus grounded.

But you also didn't answer my question. Does social harmony being disrupted get at the grave nature of murder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed that each society has its own concept of what constitutes murder. Murder being the taking of a life wrongfully so

So what is upsetting about having a life taken wrongfully so? People feel that it was unjustified, unexpected, or maybe they just missed the person that they love?

In order for people to feel safe in a group they need to feel like things like this will not happen and if they do that they will not go on answered. So rather than saying taking someone’s life that way is wrong which is more of a moral term I would say that it upsets their concept of stability. What is society beyond the illusion of stability :-)

What’s bad for the individual members bad for the herd. Malcontent and dissatisfaction with a society lead to a lack of harmony and society breaks down. So in that sense if society wants to continue to be it must maintain some sort of Simulant’s of order and predictability for its members

So I guess I’m not seeing it ought to do it I’m saying doing it is a function of self-preservation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PoorRichRichard]

Good stuff here. Tagged for later.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by 1911RONIN

...
What is fascinating is the moral fundamentalism that comes from anti-theists. They have no tincture of skepticism regarding their own moral point of view; that they could be wrong.

This is what I have observed too, and the reason for this thread.

I'm seeing the level of conviction that is sufficient to dehumanize everyone who disagrees with them, likely to the point of complete annihilation, very reminiscent of the same period a 100 years ago in Europe. The "cancel culture" and the "woke mob" are examples of this fundamentalism.