• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Theists do not have a monopoly on Morality

smax26 said:
"you seculars"? I believe all people are allowed to petition or reform laws. Last I checked, over 95% of our senate and house, who are the actual ones making the laws, are professed theists. (at least that's what they claim to be in order to get elected)
Click to expand...

That's because the people want their representatives to be guided by a higher power. Too bad many of those representatives are liars.

IMO the judges and politicians who passed Roe v Wade were acting against the will of God,
.
 
WCH said:
That's because the people want their representatives to be guided by a higher power. Too bad many of those representatives are liars.

IMO the judges and politicians who passed Roe v Wade were acting against the will of God,
.
Click to expand...

Which god?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Ok, so we are going to have multiple conversations on this...

Since we have evidence of morality (and even law based on the concepts of right and wrong in a society) in plenty of cultures well before religion knew what it was missing out on, there is ample evidence that religion does not own morality and in fact did not even come up with the concept of morality.

As such, we also have plenty of evidence of rather immoral behavior from "religion" or systems of belief over all of human history further illustrating how little religion can claim morality ownership.
Click to expand...

It wasn't exactly multiple on purpose. The OP was originally in a forum where atheists wouldn't be able to respond so I suggest that it be moved to the correct forum. Hence two, but I'd imagine the other one will be deleted or simply die away.
 
Thrilla said:
so atheists derive their morality from government?...is that what you are trying to say?
Click to expand...

Morality is a culturally conditioned response.
 
Ikari said:
I actually do think there is objective morality and it can be discovered through philosophy. It's rooted in the basic equality that all humans are human. Natural rights can be understood through intelligence and reason, the very basics of humanity. But I don't think a god is required to understand it, just a brain.
Click to expand...

So I used to believe that as well because the idea of subjective morality seemed to leave us in a situation where we could arbitrarily choose what we like to be right and what we did not like to be wrong. I was able to reconcile the idea of subjective morality once I realized that morality is not something that is independent of a conscience person who can evaluate it. So while the morality is subjective once someone states a goal they wish to actualize, e.g. I want to raise happy healthy children, then there are objectively right and objectively wrong was to accomplish that goal.

Metaphorically, all measurements are subjective, an inch, a mile, a meter, but once we subjectively define a meter, we can objectively define what it is. Morality isn't a set of rules, but rather a set of principles upon which we decide if something is moral, so it can, in a way be thought of as a measurement, a measurement that is define subjectively, i.e. killing is bad, then we can say that actions that lead to the killing of others is morally wrong.

Does that make sense?
 
Fletch said:
I think it is this sort of confused, jumble of thoughts that leads people to conclude that atheists have no moral code that guides them. I mean, please explain how one leaves the word moral out of a discussion of right and wrong. That's nonsense. But at the center of your confusion is the conflating/confusing of morality with majority as you did in your final paragraph. You need to rethink (or think through for the first time) your position.
Click to expand...

This.

OP is not helping our case.
 
RAMOSS said:
According to some philosophers, it is. https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response

I can't see any reason to dispute that conclusion.
Click to expand...

The most common dispute is moral disagreement is actually really low. The disagreement within a society is pretty much the same when cultures clash. A less common dispute is when people argue that reason is universal and morality is based on reason. Therefore, it's more about the nature of the individual than his/her culture.

Also, many of the arguments aren't actually arguments about morality. In the abortion argument, the question isn't "should we kill people?". Pro-choice and Pro-life answer "of course not". The argument nearly is always "Is a fetus a person" or "do we have to be moral to a fetus". This isn't a moral question. It's either metaethical or factual in nature.
 
All religions are immoral according to every other religion.
I'm a fan of crowdscourcing and accept their collective wisdom that all religions are inherently wrong.
 
Morality comes with time and knowledge. Things that were considered moral or even just common everyday things from the past are very well considered abhorrent today .

In regards to religion I will use the two largest religions Christianity and Islam
Both groups have ideals that are cherry picked to make it seem like it is good to coincide with their own morals or on the flip side what we consider to be bad to coincide with their wicked sense of morality ( threatening those who disagree or who they disagree with as well as saying awful things to people). Christians who would quote the kindness of Jesus yet stay silent on the atrocities and stoning of homosexuals not to mention sexism that is preached throughout both old and new testament.

While other Christians would very well preach the damnation of homosexuals as stated in levitcus and ignore all parts that deal with animal sacrifice , dietary restrictions and wearing two different fabrics , and spouting anything that supports their own narrative.

In Islam you have those who say that it is a religion of peace and that it promotes charity or quote : “Anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should not harm his neighbor, and anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should entertain his guest generously, and anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should talk what is good or keep quiet

While the flip side for which we see on the news the bombings the murder of those who critiqueso their beliefs are killed while and quoting - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

It's all a confirmation biased and people pick and choose what parts they adhere to and from reading the same literature in both the biggest religions you have those who take the good and disregard the bad or put less emphasis* to denote it or ignore all good and put more* emphasis on the evil all while thinking they are the moral one .

With all that said it is clear that religion cant possibly have* a monopoly on morality* because even with all the people who study it can't even definitively* agree on what the morals are.*

( please note that I'm making this post from a relatively small tablet and my Grammer / spelling* maybe* askewed from this long winded tangent )
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
According to some philosophers, it is. https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response

I can't see any reason to dispute that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Well, he's just pointing out that what people believe is moral is a culturally conditioned phenomenon, not that what is moral is a culturally conditioned phenomenon. Those are very different points (and though there are those who argue that a "belief that X is moral" causes "X to be moral", the distinction still stands). And that's probably true (though not exclusively. There's good evidence that much of moral belief can be attributed to evolution - altruism and its role in inclusive fitness and all that. Not to mention the enormous similarity in morality across cultures - despite the fact that people tend to only focus on the differences. There are no cultures that idolize cowardice, for instance).
 
Unrepresented said:
All religions are immoral according to every other religion.
I'm a fan of crowdscourcing and accept their collective wisdom that all religions are inherently wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm a theist and a logician, so I disagree and know it's invalid, but I actually find this rather amusing =)

the_recruit said:
Well, he's just pointing out that what people believe is moral is a culturally conditioned phenomenon, not that what is moral is a culturally conditioned phenomenon. Those are very different points (and though there are those who argue that a "belief that X is moral" causes "X to be moral", the distinction still stands). And that's probably true (though not exclusively. There's good evidence that much of moral belief can be attributed to evolution - altruism and its role in inclusive fitness and all that. Not to mention the enormous similarity in morality across cultures - despite the fact that people tend to only focus on the differences. There are no cultures that idolize cowardice, for instance).
Click to expand...

That's not a bad distinction. I might dispute that evolution caused our moral judgments though. I think that evolution caused our rational capacity, but I think the reason inspired a kind of morality. Without the rational capacity, good and bad is whoever is strongest.
 
Last edited:
Radical said:
That's not a bad distinction. I might dispute that evolution caused our moral judgments though. I think that evolution caused our rational capacity, but I think the reason inspired a kind of morality. Without the rational capacity, good and bad is whoever is strongest.
Click to expand...

I would say that reason can play a role in extending moral judgments (eg, pain is wrong. punching this baby causes pain. therefore, punching babies is wrong), but not in the initial moral judgment (there is no way to derive that "pain is wrong"). To me the is-ought problem appears intractable.
 
WCH said:
I Am is his name
Click to expand...

No, you aren't. The 'I am' is a pun that does not translate to either Greek or English.
 
smax26 said:
Some theists bring up the point that Atheists are immoral. Where do you get your morality from if not God?..is the common inquiry to Atheists.
Click to expand...

That's a known ingorant comment. Morality was developed in the Ancient Greek philosophy of both pre- and post- Socratics. Whoever brings up this question is an uneducated ignorant.
 
the_recruit said:
I would say that reason can play a role in extending moral judgments (eg, pain is wrong. punching this baby causes pain. therefore, punching babies is wrong), but not in the initial moral judgment (there is no way to derive that "pain is wrong"). To me the is-ought problem appears intractable.
Click to expand...

I'm currently getting my masters in Philosophy, and your question is perfect. Sidgwick dismisses the is-ought gap by making a fact-value distinction and then introducing moral intuition. My first reaction to this was that it was total garbage. But he's so right. If you like reading (cause it's a long book) it's called "The Method of Ethics". He's not an organized writter, either btw. Don't pick up unless you like a challenge.

Also, there's an article called "Darwinian Dilemma" by Sharon Street (super famous) where she argues our morality can't come from anything but evolution. Then there's a response called "The Objectivity of Ethics and the Unity of Practical Reason by Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer (Singer is also super-famous) which says one of her arguments is bunk and concludes the opposite. I'm with Singer on this one, big time. This plus Sidgwick is what I'm writing my paper on for this class.
 
Paralogic said:
That's a known ingorant comment. Morality was developed in the Ancient Greek philosophy of both pre- and post- Socratics. Whoever brings up this question is an uneducated ignorant.
Click to expand...

Was is "developed" or "discovered"? Those philosophers didn't think they were inventing anything.
 
Radical said:
Was is "developed" or "discovered"? Those philosophers didn't think they were inventing anything.
Click to expand...

OK, "defined". Morality was "defined" well before any of the major Abrahamic religions tried to get a hold of the term.

Morality has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The educated ones know that.
 
smax26 said:
Some theists bring up the point that Atheists are immoral. Where do you get your morality from if not God?..is the common inquiry to Atheists.

Let me put an end to this common inquiry by asserting: There is no such thing as objective morality.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that morality is subjective and as long as I can justify my actions then it is moral.

Almost every situation you can think of is different and requires it's own subjective reasoning and action. Whether you want to call that action Moral or Immoral is trying to force a label (when it is not needed) and force it into a category so we can then easily identify.."look this action is moral and this one is immoral".
Click to expand...
example: I am mass murder that kills people simply because I consider them a blight in the world. I have therefore justified my actions as moral based on my own perceived definition of morality.

For example, if your spouse and your child are both drowning and you can only save one of them:
The question some would ask is "it more moral to save your child since they have their entire future in front of them? Or your spouse who you've bonded with for many, many years and have a deep foundation of love?"
Click to expand...

This isn't a question of morality.

The answer is that the question does not make sense. Is the action chosen more moral- according to who? Your God? There is no such thing as objective morality. Both choices in this case (and most cases) can be viewed as either right or wrong.
Click to expand...

then you believe that anything goes.

What the real question theists should be asking is how do Atheists determine what is right and wrong? (just leave the Moral word out of it).
Click to expand...
actually morality is part of it so you can't leave it out.

And the answer is so simple it's rather obvious. Here's what we do. A secular society gets together and agrees on what actions are right (what benefits the most people) and what actions are wrong. These are called laws. This society should then draw this up in a formal document. This is called a Constitution. We should then have a section that helps us with this process: The legistlative. A section that enforces these laws: Executive. And a section that considers each situation individually and makes judgements accordingly: The judicial.

Oh wait, we already have that... :)
Click to expand...

wait you just said that it was subjective now you are not saying it is subjective and it is based on an objective view of what other people say is right and wrong.. can you please be consistent in your argument?
 
Paralogic said:
OK, "defined". Morality was "defined" well before any of the major Abrahamic religions tried to get a hold of the term.

Morality has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The educated ones know that.
Click to expand...

Actually, the New Testament makes use of Greek philosophy. It's really cool. Jesus is called "the Word" over and over. This makes absolutely no sense in English. People that try to make sense of it without understanding the Greek philosophers are dumb. Jesus is called Logos, which does mean "word", but it also means "reason", "logic", "argument", etc, and has that connotation. More importantly, Heraclitus wrote massive tomes on what he called "Logos". John is totally using Heraclitus to explain his religion. According to Heraclitus, Logos is divine, eternal, created order from chaos, connects to human beings, unifies, and adherence to the Logos naturally promotes peace and civilization, and a whole bunch of Jesus similarities. Even more, Justin Martyr (early 2nd century) wrote about how Heraclitus and Socrates were Christians before Christianity!

Guys at the beginning of Christianity would absolutely agree with you. Those Greek philosophers were the best. I have no idea why Christianity has abandoned the Greeks that were so highly esteemed by the forerunners. It's a shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom