Is religion necessary for a sense of ethics or morality?
-
_Tal Bachman
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 484
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:05 pm
Plutarch....Plutarch Plutarch Plutarch....
Come ON :P
Come on, dude. What's the matter? I already apologized for the short-term memory loss comment, but it's happening again. Here's just one of your quotes:
"I think my quest to deterimine Tal's ethical standards is really kind of simple. He is an atheist, at least so far as what I can tell. If so, exactly what standards guide him? It is my position that Judiac Christianity is the correct standard for the world".
That's a fair question, though I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But the point here is, implied in it and other comments is a wonder about what morality someone who didn't believe in God would espouse, or even what that concept might mean for someone who didn't believe in anything higher.
Moreover, most of your posts have NOT "been focused" on the point AT ALL, which was NEVER, as I keep pointing out, about the innate morality or immorality of secretly sleeping with other men's wives, deflowering fourteen year olds under false pretences, etc. NEVER. Do you understand that? You keep demanding to know by what moral standard I have adjudged those actions to violate some transcendent moral law, and yet, in the threads in question, I never once even undertook to argue that, SINCE IT WAS NOT THE POINT. Why not take a moment and re-read the presentism thread? It's about presentism. Remember? Not transcendent moral law. What's the matter with you, Plutarch?
As I said, since this appears to be a special concern for you - indeed, so much so that it has become quite easy to imagine that you yourself have some misgivings about the morality of the actions in question - why not start a special thread about it? Why keep making yourself look foolish by demanding to know why a thread about Pauline Hanson isn't answering a question about the coaching staff of the Sydney Swans? You're embarrassing yourself and you don't even seem to realize it. At least if you do, in a day or two, it's as if you've forgotten about everything not only that we've said about the matter, but that you yourself have said!
Come on.
Come ON :P
Come on, dude. What's the matter? I already apologized for the short-term memory loss comment, but it's happening again. Here's just one of your quotes:
"I think my quest to deterimine Tal's ethical standards is really kind of simple. He is an atheist, at least so far as what I can tell. If so, exactly what standards guide him? It is my position that Judiac Christianity is the correct standard for the world".
That's a fair question, though I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But the point here is, implied in it and other comments is a wonder about what morality someone who didn't believe in God would espouse, or even what that concept might mean for someone who didn't believe in anything higher.
Moreover, most of your posts have NOT "been focused" on the point AT ALL, which was NEVER, as I keep pointing out, about the innate morality or immorality of secretly sleeping with other men's wives, deflowering fourteen year olds under false pretences, etc. NEVER. Do you understand that? You keep demanding to know by what moral standard I have adjudged those actions to violate some transcendent moral law, and yet, in the threads in question, I never once even undertook to argue that, SINCE IT WAS NOT THE POINT. Why not take a moment and re-read the presentism thread? It's about presentism. Remember? Not transcendent moral law. What's the matter with you, Plutarch?
As I said, since this appears to be a special concern for you - indeed, so much so that it has become quite easy to imagine that you yourself have some misgivings about the morality of the actions in question - why not start a special thread about it? Why keep making yourself look foolish by demanding to know why a thread about Pauline Hanson isn't answering a question about the coaching staff of the Sydney Swans? You're embarrassing yourself and you don't even seem to realize it. At least if you do, in a day or two, it's as if you've forgotten about everything not only that we've said about the matter, but that you yourself have said!
Come on.
-
_moksha
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
One problem facing modern religions, is that their codes of morality do not address many modern ethical problems and dilemmas.
If I could use the LDS example of the Word of Wisdom, I would observe that it was an attempt to address some of the thinking regarding health food intake in the first half of the 19th Century. Bravo for that. Unfortunately it did not have a built in feedback loop to adjust itself to future health care concerns. Once it was found that hot drinks by themselves were not harmful to humans, this was reinterpreted to mean tea and coffee. When new drugs and other harmful health practices appeared, the health care portion had already been codified into Holy Writ and so no further continual feedback or additions/subtractions from this Writ were possible. So what happens when we now find that green tea is a health food?
That is essentially what has happened with religious morality. As another example, scripture fails to mention shady business practices, as a result they are practiced by otherwise religiously adherent people. Using the Word of Wisdom again, can you imagine the impact this would have if shady business practices were addressed within it? Or if it had addressed social problems like the unbridled exploitation of workers from 1850 to 1930? Things would have been different in Utah. Now if this was applied to other religions as well, things would have been different on a much wider scale.
...
If I could use the LDS example of the Word of Wisdom, I would observe that it was an attempt to address some of the thinking regarding health food intake in the first half of the 19th Century. Bravo for that. Unfortunately it did not have a built in feedback loop to adjust itself to future health care concerns. Once it was found that hot drinks by themselves were not harmful to humans, this was reinterpreted to mean tea and coffee. When new drugs and other harmful health practices appeared, the health care portion had already been codified into Holy Writ and so no further continual feedback or additions/subtractions from this Writ were possible. So what happens when we now find that green tea is a health food?
That is essentially what has happened with religious morality. As another example, scripture fails to mention shady business practices, as a result they are practiced by otherwise religiously adherent people. Using the Word of Wisdom again, can you imagine the impact this would have if shady business practices were addressed within it? Or if it had addressed social problems like the unbridled exploitation of workers from 1850 to 1930? Things would have been different in Utah. Now if this was applied to other religions as well, things would have been different on a much wider scale.
...
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
-
_Roger Morrison
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Tal: Is religion necessary for a sense of ethics or morality?
Jersey Girl: That's a good question. Were I a historian I'd probably be able to give a better answer. I think that religion can be a part of maintaining a healthy state of ethics and morality. At the same time, I think that from a sociological perspective, ethics and morality develops from a type of cause/effect learning. Simply stated: Building is good, Bombs are bad. Get it?
(I read you on a fairly regular basis over on RFM. You have a gift for expressing yourself through writing, especially in a humorous light. I'll also add that I danced to your Daddy's music while stationed in Europe where we took care of business in Heidleberg, Munich, and other fountains of ever flowing Lowenbrau with BTO in the background. Good times!)
Jersey Girl: That's a good question. Were I a historian I'd probably be able to give a better answer. I think that religion can be a part of maintaining a healthy state of ethics and morality. At the same time, I think that from a sociological perspective, ethics and morality develops from a type of cause/effect learning. Simply stated: Building is good, Bombs are bad. Get it?
(I read you on a fairly regular basis over on RFM. You have a gift for expressing yourself through writing, especially in a humorous light. I'll also add that I danced to your Daddy's music while stationed in Europe where we took care of business in Heidleberg, Munich, and other fountains of ever flowing Lowenbrau with BTO in the background. Good times!)
-
_MormonMendacity
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am
Is religion necessary for a sense of ethics or morality?
If the operative word is "necessary" I would say no.
I think that historically, religion has done just what Joseph did when he wrote moral imperatives into scripture, i.e. he listened to the debates of his day and cherry-picked answers.
Whenever I hear someone suggest that the world would be a better place by following the 10 Commandments or the Sermon on the mount, I wonder about some of those suggestions. Are those morals?
I now place all sorts of gods before the Jewish god. I feel okay about that.
I've forgotten the sabbath so much that I can't remember if it's Saturday or Sunday.
And yet, I still run out and help my neighbor move the wood pile without referring to either of those important stories...and rarely think about murdering my whole neighborhood because they're building a new LDS chapel down the street which will increase the Sunday morning traffic and disturb my restful Sabbaths -- whatever day that is.
I think that historically, religion has done just what Joseph did when he wrote moral imperatives into scripture, i.e. he listened to the debates of his day and cherry-picked answers.
Whenever I hear someone suggest that the world would be a better place by following the 10 Commandments or the Sermon on the mount, I wonder about some of those suggestions. Are those morals?
I now place all sorts of gods before the Jewish god. I feel okay about that.
I've forgotten the sabbath so much that I can't remember if it's Saturday or Sunday.
And yet, I still run out and help my neighbor move the wood pile without referring to either of those important stories...and rarely think about murdering my whole neighborhood because they're building a new LDS chapel down the street which will increase the Sunday morning traffic and disturb my restful Sabbaths -- whatever day that is.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
-
_Ray A
Re: Is religion necessary for a sense of ethics or morality?
Tal Bachman wrote:I also think it is clear that once our moral senses become co-opted by an ideology, one that finds incarnation in a group of people devoted to obeying a reputedly "infallible when speaking as such" prophet or Hitler-like man/god, that the potential for that sense's distortion becomes very great (feeling another post coming on about the Milgram experiments). It could lead us to doing the most immoral things, like flying planes into a building, or killing people under flag of truce in cold blood, because we thought "the prophet" wanted us to.
I think it's possible to become "co-opted by an ideology" to some extent, but I'm not sure any Mormon would go against their moral sense to obey a prophet, if he asked things against their moral sense. This happened with polygamy. Think of how the Witnesses were the first to condemn Joseph. If you've read Whitmer's Address To All Believers in Christ, it reads like five or six internet pages of condemnation of Joseph Smith. Emma revolted, though acquiescing for a time. The Twelve at one stage were split, you can't even say split, since Joseph complained that only Young and Kimball were left supporting him at one stage. When Joseph went against their "moral senses", he paid a heavy price. It is true that polygamy prevailed in the end, but think of the church's stand today. Is it not in line with the moral sense of the rest of the community?
Then there's birth control, and having children. Most Mormons seem to follow their own moral sense here. If they want two, they have two, and then use contraception. Who cares what the prophet says? They may give lip service, but what is the reality? The leaders can hardly even get the men to do home teaching. Then there's working women. In spite of numerous presidents saying that women should be 'home-makers", more than half are out in the workforce. Nearly every LDS mother I knew had a full or part time job. Then there's tithing. Anyone who's been a bishop will know that they pay if they can, and then they get a tax deduction at the end of the financial year, which means they weren't really paying tithing, because they got back 50%-75% of it from the government as a "charitable deduction". When we had a welfare farm back in the '80s the bishop had to give sermons to get anyone to go. This was going to be "our future when the world falls into chaos". The old welfare farm is now a weed factory. How many of the 12-13 million Mormons are even active? I would guess less than half.
I can't imagine Mormons flying planes into buildings, since they don't even want to do home teaching. Or even trying to subvert the government when an article of faith says the very opposite, to sustain the government. In short, how dangerous is Mormonism? If you gave 30 years of your life to it, and then discovered that you don't believe it, it can do enormous harm to the individual. But how we handle that discovery is also important. Look on the positive side. Life is so much sweeter when you've seen both sides. If Papillion hadn't spent 13 years on Devil's Island, none of us would have read all those fantastic books, and Dustin Hoffman would have had one movie less.
That's just my take.
-
_ajax18
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6914
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am
After all, there is no allowance within Mormonism for "righteous disobedience".
This has been one of my major hangups with Mormonism philosophically, yet I must admit that on a practical basis generally tend to agree with Church leadership on good and evil.
I think a belief that this life is all there is would logically lead to a philosophy similar to that of Thomas Hobbes. While I may not just start randomly shooting people for sport if I no longer believe in an afterlife and eternal justice, I definitely think that different beliefs are obviously directly proportional to how a person chooses to act. Maybe people could still be moral with a religious instituion, but I have a hard time seeing how people could motivate themselves to be moral without a belief in eternity. It simply would not add up because this life is not completely fair.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
-
_Roger Morrison
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am
Ray, you posted some good thoughts, as
To the bolded: Not so sure. Many of us have kept nonLDS loved ones outside of family marriages/weddings while feeling guilty, but wanting to do, "the right thing". I was influenced against my true moral sense to do the wrong-thing, thinking it to be the right-thing. I was wrong.
Among the LDS things that give good cause to question their moralty and ethics, this abhorent practice of denying participation in the ceremony of marriage is the ultimate afront to the LDS claim of family unity.
It is without reason or purpose. Except as it manifests ignorance, fear, insecurity, cruelty, malisousness and blind obedience wherein one is forced to choose between family and church to proove your faith.
To proclaim divine revelation leading Mormonism needs only this malpractice to illustrate the delusions of the corporation.
To me all else is darkened by this exercise of control, manipulation, coercion and duplicity. Roger
I think it's possible to become "co-opted by an ideology" to some extent, but I'm not sure any Mormon would go against their moral sense to obey a prophet, if he asked things against their moral sense.... bold added)
To the bolded: Not so sure. Many of us have kept nonLDS loved ones outside of family marriages/weddings while feeling guilty, but wanting to do, "the right thing". I was influenced against my true moral sense to do the wrong-thing, thinking it to be the right-thing. I was wrong.
Among the LDS things that give good cause to question their moralty and ethics, this abhorent practice of denying participation in the ceremony of marriage is the ultimate afront to the LDS claim of family unity.
It is without reason or purpose. Except as it manifests ignorance, fear, insecurity, cruelty, malisousness and blind obedience wherein one is forced to choose between family and church to proove your faith.
To proclaim divine revelation leading Mormonism needs only this malpractice to illustrate the delusions of the corporation.
To me all else is darkened by this exercise of control, manipulation, coercion and duplicity. Roger
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
Roger Morrison wrote:Ray, you posted some good thoughts, asI think it's possible to become "co-opted by an ideology" to some extent, but I'm not sure any Mormon would go against their moral sense to obey a prophet, if he asked things against their moral sense.... bold added)
To the bolded: Not so sure. Many of us have kept nonLDS loved ones outside of family marriages/weddings while feeling guilty, but wanting to do, "the right thing". I was influenced against my true moral sense to do the wrong-thing, thinking it to be the right-thing. I was wrong.
Among the LDS things that give good cause to question their moralty and ethics, this abhorent practice of denying participation in the ceremony of marriage is the ultimate afront to the LDS claim of family unity.
It is without reason or purpose. Except as it manifests ignorance, fear, insecurity, cruelty, malisousness and blind obedience wherein one is forced to choose between family and church to proove your faith.
To proclaim divine revelation leading Mormonism needs only this malpractice to illustrate the delusions of the corporation.
To me all else is darkened by this exercise of control, manipulation, coercion and duplicity. Roger
Agreed, Roger. I've seen people (including me) do things they believed were wrong simply because they were told to do so by a church leader. True, I haven't yet seen criminal behavior (but then there's the MMM), but I've seen people obey and then feel terrible about what they've done. The thing about the weddings is that I'm not even sure most Mormons give it much thought. Unworthy folks are supposed to stay outside; that's just the way it is. For some people, like my wife and me, it was very hard to have half our family outside waiting, but we did it anyway.