Can You Have Morality Without Religion?

[Chris.B]

Is "nothing" possible? Have you ever experienced "nothing"?

well you tell me, I believe something/someone created the first "thing" and it did not originate from nothing.

Can't have creation without a CREATOR....

 

[Fervid]

That's confirmation bias, and this circular argument has been done to death here as has this thread. Good day.

 

[Unchained]

well you tell me, I believe something/someone created the first "thing" and it did not originate from nothing.

Can't have creation without a CREATOR....

Who created the CREATOR? Where did that something/someone come from?

 

[Chris.B]

Who created the CREATOR? Where did that something/someone come from?

The creator has always been there...he is Alpha and Omega, an immortal being.

I'm not in the business of trying to understand the origin of God, it's beyond human comprehension.

 

[Broke Wave]

Controversial opinion : No you can't

 

[Type Username Here]

Controversial opinion : No you can't

Care to explain the logic/reason behind this statement?

 

[Fervid]

Care to explain the logic/reason behind this statement?

 

[Type Username Here]

I'm much more interested in the philosophical debates regarding ethics and morality. There have been a few philosophers who have agreed with Broke Wave and others like him.

Kierkegaard is probably the most notable, although he doesn't strictly advocate "God given ethics" per se.

Just wanted to hear his arguments regarding his opinion.

 

[Broke Wave]

Care to explain the logic/reason behind this statement?

Morality is totally subjective. Certain things humans are predisposed not to do like kill or rape each other can be learned or cultivated through the social contract within the framework of the state. I.E. If I kill, I will be killed.

However morality to me is seeing that killing someone is wrong in and of itself, and not refraining to do such an act just based on fear of retribution. When this relationship breaks down, people tend to act less "morally". When there is less chance of retribution for their actions, along with a myriad of other factors, people tend to commit acts that we see as "Immoral' by virtue of infringing on the physical rights of others.

But my in my opinion, traditional morality, the type of morality that we seek to benefit from in civil society, which includes good manners, selflessness, charity and so forth comes from the idea of reward in the afterlife. The founding fathers speak at length about this idea of inalienable rights based on the supernatural, however they do not specify which deity or religion, but I feel historically speaking the stronger atheist philosophers usually draw the reader to the self, whether good or bad.

Ayn Rand would agree with me, she was a staunch atheist and saw that all morality came from religion and therefore was grounded in irrationality. She may be insane but I don't think she was stupid, I do agree along those lines although not to the extent to which she states it.

Kierkegaard and his Abraham leap of faith is actually one of the central rationalizations I use when I think about my belief in god. Great philosopher, very underrated.

 

[Schmoove]

FIrst off, this isn't a religion bashing thread. I just want to know what HL thinks. Most of our basic laws against murder, stealing, etc. are based on The Ten Commandments, but their are many modern laws that have no basis in religion, i.e. traffic laws, antitrust laws, etc. Is it possible to have a moral compass without a religious foundation?? Speak on it...

I have a question for you sir.

What came first?

1. Laws
2. A Supreme Being
3. Morality

 

[Chris.B]

I have a question for you sir.

What came first?

1. Laws
2. A Supreme Being
3. Morality

Western civilization derives most morality laws from the Bible.

 

[Type Username Here]

Morality is totally subjective. Certain things humans are predisposed not to do like kill or rape each other can be learned or cultivated through the social contract within the framework of the state. I.E. If I kill, I will be killed.

However morality to me is seeing that killing someone is wrong in and of itself, and not refraining to do such an act just based on fear of retribution. When this relationship breaks down, people tend to act less "morally". When there is less chance of retribution for their actions, along with a myriad of other factors, people tend to commit acts that we see as "Immoral' by virtue of infringing on the physical rights of others.

But my in my opinion, traditional morality, the type of morality that we seek to benefit from in civil society, which includes good manners, selflessness, charity and so forth comes from the idea of reward in the afterlife. The founding fathers speak at length about this idea of inalienable rights based on the supernatural, however they do not specify which deity or religion, but I feel historically speaking the stronger atheist philosophers usually draw the reader to the self, whether good or bad.

Ayn Rand would agree with me, she was a staunch atheist and saw that all morality came from religion and therefore was grounded in irrationality. She may be insane but I don't think she was stupid, I do agree along those lines although not to the extent to which she states it.

Thank you.

To be honest though, your first sentence (the bold) contradicts the rest of your point and argument. If you are basing a code of ethics solely on reward/punishment for actions, that can definitely exist without religious sourcing.

I think the logic falls apart when you examine the effects of secularism on religious based ethics. Something that might be construed as good manners, selflessness, and/or charity to reach an afterlife might be seen as immoral or unethical to another religion or non-believer based on a myriad of other reasons. That implies that there is a vacuum which is filled later (i.e., subjectively as you mentioned above) which can also imply that there is no universal, objective set of ethics. Thus, we rationalize a set of ethics through philosophical ideals, and some of it happens to be religious in nature.

But the question is not "did these ethics come from religion?" but "do we need religion to have morality?". Do we need a reward/punishment system in the afterlife or commands from a deity to create a code of ethics?

I'd argue the answer is no.

 

[88m3]

Lord give me the strength to talk to these heathens

 

[Broke Wave]

Thank you.

To be honest though, your first sentence (the bold) contradicts the rest of your point and argument. If you are basing a code of ethics solely on reward/punishment for actions, that can definitely exist without religious sourcing.

I think the logic falls apart when you examine the effects of secularism on religious based ethics. Something that might be construed as good manners, selflessness, and/or charity to reach an afterlife might be seen as immoral or unethical to another religion or non-believer based on a myriad of other reasons. That implies that there is a vacuum which is filled later (i.e., subjectively as you mentioned above) which can also imply that there is no universal, objective set of ethics. Thus, we rationalize a set of ethics through philosophical ideals, and some of it happens to be religious in nature.

But the question is not "did these ethics come from religion?" but "do we need religion to have morality?". Do we need a reward/punishment system in the afterlife or commands from a deity to create a code of ethics?

I'd argue the answer is no.

Ok well in the case of the actual question then I think the attempt at secularism in the west and in some other places has shown that it is obvious you can have an existing moral society without the codification or even recognition of religious tenets, I was more alluding to the individual leanings of any given person. If this is a thread about secularism, I feel that at the current state of human development it is a superior alternative to supposed religious laws which do not really ever historically cultivate or even enforce morality, rather they serve the interests of whatever ruling class that implements them I.E. Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea etc.

 

[Type Username Here]

Ok well in the case of the actual question then I think the attempt at secularism in the west and in some other places has shown that it is obvious you can have an existing moral society without the codification or even recognition of religious tenets, I was more alluding to the individual leanings of any given person. If this is a thread about secularism, I feel that at the current state of human development it is a superior alternative to supposed religious laws which do not really ever historically cultivate or even enforce morality, rather they serve the interests of whatever ruling class that implements them I.E. Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea etc.

Good stuff, just like to add that non-religious based ethics/morality can be pushed to benefit the interests of the ruling class here and in other places as well, as well as providing a means of control. It's in my opinion though that the secular morality/ethics is much easier to break away from than traditional divine command ethics that the countries you mentioned above might enforce.