Can we separate Morality from Religion? (Poll)

[bradco]

I don't get it. Within the example, both persons report that it is 'wrong' to commit 'murder'. You suggest that the difference it that one is externally imposed and the other internally imposed (thus subject to internal reassessment). I don't see how that changes the morality of the initial (unreassessed) reported view that murder is wrong. Your position fails to explain how the views are different while they are held.

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion

Oh, I accept that that is your opinion. But that doesn't help make any sense of why the same opinion is moral if held by one person but not by another.

I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any.

Say again? That last bit was too garbled for me to parse out your meaning.

Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents.

Even if that view were factaully precise (which it is not), it sheds no light on the question we are dealing with on this thread.

So, I'm still looking for someone to exlpain how the same opinion can be moral in one person but not another.

Your question is illogical.

Prior to the charter in this country Christianity and other religions substantially served as a standard concerning morals.

With the advent of the charter, political legislation overruled the natural societal evolution of this country especially in the areas of religion and language.

Your question cannot be answered because of this federal intervention. IMO the charter is destroying the fabric of this country.

For your question to be answered the federal government would have to implement some sort of STANDARDS relating to morals like it did for language, concerning 'official bilingualism' and employment in the federal government.

And in my opinion the charter reaffirms the fabric of this country. Luckily the charter still allows you the right to leave

[jefferiah]

Ivan Karamazov doesn't think its possible to have morality without God and eternity. I think Ivan was right.

[jefferiah]

ethical atheists have not thought out the moral implications of atheism. No God= No Absolutes= No Absolute Morals= Morals are social contracts= Morals are created and are not real = Anyone who wants to overstep the moral contract can do so since he didnt invent it, another human did, and he doesnt have to follow= everything is permissible

[Figleaf]

So Jefferiah, would you like to have a crack at my question, above.

[M.Dancer]

ethical atheists have not thought out the moral implications of atheism. No God= No Absolutes= No Absolute Morals= Morals are social contracts= Morals are created and are not real = Anyone who wants to overstep the moral contract can do so since he didnt invent it, another human did, and he doesnt have to follow= everything is permissible

There is a fine logical fallacy there......

[bradco]

deleted, see below

[bradco]

ethical atheists have not thought out the moral implications of atheism. No God= No Absolutes= No Absolute Morals= Morals are social contracts= Morals are created and are not real = Anyone who wants to overstep the moral contract can do so since he didnt invent it, another human did, and he doesnt have to follow= everything is permissible

Your opinion is based on an assumption that religous people dont ever break the morals laid out by their god. Since they undoubatly do, morals derived from god are no more stronger than those from any social contract. Morals in a social contract are still just as "real" as any morals from a god. Both are created, one by humans the other apparently by some higher being. I would argue when an individual has a say in what they personally believe to be moral and enter into a contract with other individuals to form a society where each respects and accepts the others morals they are both more likely to not break the contract than they would if the morals were dictated to them (ie by a god). There is little incentive to break the contract since your morals are respected and not dictated to you. You already get what you want and all you give up is allowing others to enjoy the same freedom of choice as you. The problem with religious folk is they see moral sets as competing in a zero-sum game. The more one set is accepted the less another is. It is this mind set that is one of the reasons that religions have and will always lead to conflict.

Additionally, you have failed to realize something about god derived morals: there is not only one set on this planet. There are many religions and many gods all with different morals, and even within the same religion interpretations vary. How can you then claim that there is an absolute set of morals?

[jefferiah]

ethical atheists have not thought out the moral implications of atheism. No God= No Absolutes= No Absolute Morals= Morals are social contracts= Morals are created and are not real = Anyone who wants to overstep the moral contract can do so since he didnt invent it, another human did, and he doesnt have to follow= everything is permissible

Your opinion is based on an assumption that religous people dont ever break the morals laid out by their god. Since they undoubatly do, morals derived from god are no more stronger than those from any social contract. Morals in a social contract are still just as "real" as any morals from a god. Both are created, one by humans the other apparently by some higher being. I would argue when an individual has a say in what they personally believe to be moral and enter into a contract with other individuals to form a society where each respects and accepts the others morals they are both more likely to not break the contract than they would if the morals were dictated to them (ie by a god). There is little incentive to break the contract since your morals are respected and not dictated to you. You already get what you want and all you give up is allowing others to enjoy the same freedom of choice as you. The problem with religious folk is they see moral sets as competing in a zero-sum game. The more one set is accepted the less another is. It is this mind set that is one of the reasons that religions have and will always lead to conflict.

Additionally, you have failed to realize something about god derived morals: there is not only one set on this planet. There are many religions and many gods all with different morals, and even within the same religion interpretations vary. How can you then claim that there is an absolute set of morals?

I never said that people who believe in God dont break their own standards. But when you remove absolutes and have a social contract, you can no longer say that what Hitler did was wrong, because the part of the standard social contract he violated was never created by him but only by another human and he apparently didnt agree to it. So he faced the consequences of renegging on the contract, and cannot be said to have been wrong, if there are no absolutes that is. Put differently, if there is no absolute then the social contract is not really morality at all, but just a deal.

[Figleaf]

... when you remove absolutes and have a social contract, you can no longer say that what Hitler did was wrong, because the part of the standard social contract he violated was never created by him but only by another human and he apparently didnt agree to it.

Two problems with that:

1. Religious morality is not in fact absolute, but merely pretends to be. God's will cannot be validly demonstrated by human means, and human means are all we have at our disposal.

2. Hitler can be shown to be wrong pragmatically, irrespective of Hitler's acquiescence to the question.

[bradco]

ethical atheists have not thought out the moral implications of atheism. No God= No Absolutes= No Absolute Morals= Morals are social contracts= Morals are created and are not real = Anyone who wants to overstep the moral contract can do so since he didnt invent it, another human did, and he doesnt have to follow= everything is permissible

Your opinion is based on an assumption that religous people dont ever break the morals laid out by their god. Since they undoubatly do, morals derived from god are no more stronger than those from any social contract. Morals in a social contract are still just as "real" as any morals from a god. Both are created, one by humans the other apparently by some higher being. I would argue when an individual has a say in what they personally believe to be moral and enter into a contract with other individuals to form a society where each respects and accepts the others morals they are both more likely to not break the contract than they would if the morals were dictated to them (ie by a god). There is little incentive to break the contract since your morals are respected and not dictated to you. You already get what you want and all you give up is allowing others to enjoy the same freedom of choice as you. The problem with religious folk is they see moral sets as competing in a zero-sum game. The more one set is accepted the less another is. It is this mind set that is one of the reasons that religions have and will always lead to conflict.

Additionally, you have failed to realize something about god derived morals: there is not only one set on this planet. There are many religions and many gods all with different morals, and even within the same religion interpretations vary. How can you then claim that there is an absolute set of morals?

I never said that people who believe in God dont break their own standards. But when you remove absolutes and have a social contract, you can no longer say that what Hitler did was wrong, because the part of the standard social contract he violated was never created by him but only by another human and he apparently didnt agree to it. So he faced the consequences of renegging on the contract, and cannot be said to have been wrong, if there are no absolutes that is. Put differently, if there is no absolute then the social contract is not really morality at all, but just a deal.

The most interesting point that comes into my mind in response is that Hitler could have easily claimed that his morals were god derived. His claim to god derived morals would be no different in terms of legitmacy than the original claims of I guess Jesus (my religious knowledge isnt good lol).

Either way his actions are still morally wrong on the grounds that they go against the limitations of what you are free to choose is moral. In a liberal society you are only free to choose your morals as long as they dont harm others or restrict others people rights. Clearly Hitler is then considered immoral. I would think most ethical aetheists prescribe to the harm principle.

[DarkAngel_]

Why?

i said yes! because from a morality of self goverance comes the fall of a slave morality!

my wish is to rule myself! the ultamite freedom and those rules i may use and not excuse for my actions by my virtue. i choose only 1 virtue, and i shout no law at others, for i am more true to myself and not as fast to be damned. so i am godless and without fear i have no wrath. so i am in my height, alone, but not for long as i have seen madness be freindly in these heights, and so hard i've dreamed of flying, know that i shall fly! so i hope that it is so, and am sure that religon, was not the 1st morality.

[Destroyer]

Yes, but I also Like Cheese.

Morals = Common Sense. It doesn't matter what the hell you believe.

[DarkAngel_]

Yes, but I also Like Cheese.

Morals = Common Sense. It doesn't matter what the hell you believe.

wow... is this the ultimate virtue? destroyer you have given me an idea! please hear it!

you have just spoke to everyone as if they are fighting, marols are fighting! so mabye that 1 sense that is 'common' could be the ultimate moral, the degree from which all things agree upon. this is the freedom we crave! for morals without opression! destroyer that simple statment was genus!! would you make a post on this? we might learn alot!