Wiploc

Norge wrote:


I asked Norge how a Christian would answer those questions. His response was unsatisfying, a mix of obscurantism and insult. So now I'm putting the question to other Christians: Does religion provide a better logical grounding for morality than atheists can have? If so, how does that work? I particularly like Norge's phrasing when he spoke of the "the imperative nature, the "should" that grounds morality." I don't see how religion is helpful at providing the should.
crc

Straight Hate

I can't answer the question you're asking, but would it be so hard for 'Norge' to believe that perhaps a soldier would find no pleasure in the act, and that the subjective moral imprint of his culture would ensure that he experienced only revulsion to the idea?

Christianity seems to have a built-in safeguard that will allow its adherents to repent if they've done something 'wrong'. Preceeding this is usually a false sense of righteousness that I became all-too-familiar with in my theistic days.

Could it be argued that because there is no natural repercussion(s) for any violation to the perceived objective morality, it is rendered moot here in this life? To lead a life of objective evil, only to repent on one's deathbed - heartwarming image. Where do I sign up?

Psychic

"Forgive me father for I have sinned"

it's a kind of blaming your faults on others.
when it's YOUR moral code you are following, it becomes a part of you, you are damn integrated rationally and emotionally with every word of your moral code.

but when it's a divine moral code, your ardor to implement that moral code stems from fear or love of god! emotaionally! so whenever you emotions craves doing something against this moral code, your mind will have a conflict of emotions, and in the end the stronger emotions will win.

while when your mind is the source of the moral code, then you the moral code is (let me put it this way) the source of you mind. you are absoulotly less likely to desire doing anything against your moral code.
my arguement is based on theories of evolutaionry psychology on conscience. what i have presented are conclusions based on that theory. I strongly recommend you guys reading:

"the moral animal" by Robert Williams. it is very ....... revealing and enlightening.

Alonzo Fyfe

My problem with theistic morality is this:

It is the codification of the bigotries and prejudices of primative and ignorant tribes, held up as the highest ideals for us to strive for.

Theistic morality does to ethics, what theistic science (e.g., creationism) does to science. It chains us to the uninformed opinions of pre-literate humans, forbidding progress and condemning any who would seek it.

On this account, I cannot even see the beginning of an argument that theistic ethics can be placed on a firmer moral foundation -- any more than creationism can be placed on a firmer scientific foundation.

Psychic

well, I wouldn't be that harsh really on the religious foundations of morals.

once I read this quote (I think it was Napoleon) "religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich" I gave this statement a real thought, and it occured to me then that there has been through the ages of ingnorance and darkness, some conditions were the authority of some sort of god was needed.

I am quite sure that we all agree here that working out your morals require quite a time, and a great deal of intellectual efforts. I don't know about you guys, but I have seen lots of people in the lowest classes of society. and regarding most of them, I can't even imagine the great majority of those poeple have what it takes to spend half an hour thinking about their morals. some people lack the time needed, others, lack the proper education, others lack the environment that encourages such meditation ...etc and even some people (and that applies to all classes) lack the intellectual abilities to perform such task!

so in my point of view, having the moral code figured out by religion for those people is a true bless! and with such a mysterious authority that's capable of seeing them all the time, I think it'll work out just fine for them.

I am not suggesting of course that religion has anything to do with true morality. but what I am saying is: "religion has been beneficial at times" that of course supposing that if not for religion in the first, man wouldn't have come with better ways to organize society.

AdamWho

It seems to me that any morality based on an externally defined code (such as a law) is not really morality at all. Morality comes from the individual's values and has to be chosen, not imposed.

I like the Rand quote:
"A moral commandment is a contridiction in terms"

Thinking (which is required for morality) cannot be commanded only unthinking obediance, which is what the christian mistakes for morality.

yguy

You assume facts not in evidence. How exactly are the commandments against murder and adultery codifications of such prejudices.

Licentiousness is progress?

Theistic ethics ARE the moral foundation.

philechat

A strict moral system hardly needs theistic foundations, given the number of non-theists in many cultures. Society itself develops morality that commands people to follow, written or unwritten. Social sanctions and orstracism results when an individual violates the agreed-upon moral values of a society.

Here I am speaking descriptively. I do not mean that people ought to adhere to the society's moral value all of the time. And I think religious ethics are developped as a reinforcement of systems of morality already present in a given society. To universalize and codify a given system of social mores--it has been the goal of many religions.

To call religions the basis of morality is to treat morality backwards. Religion changes all the time and new gods appear to take place of old gods, but many societies' moral codes remain static even when they incorperated new gods. There are also instances of societies which changes its moral codes even when they remain under the dictates of the same religion.

I do advocate some form of noble lie--but I think theism and religion are hardly requirements for a society to force its moral codes upon the people.

Wiploc

Can you help us out with an explanation? In what sense are theistic ethics a better foundation than, say, hedonism?
crc

yguy

"Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good."

Taking the definition at face value, there isn't much wrong with it. You could say that a man who eschews adultery is behaving hedonistically because he knows the consequences will be ultimately unpleasant. Of course in practice, hedonists don't look beyond what makes them feel good now. Inimical to hedonism is the idea of self-sacrifice, without which none of us would have the freedoms we have.

Christ said that all the law and the prophets rest on the two great commandments: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. That is what I mean by Theistic ethics, not so much the Mosaic law, though I don't set the ten commandments at naught.