Atheism and morality

[Brother Hassan]

[i7Grendel]

One of the reasons people have their own mind, is to make their own moral decisions appropriate to the circumstances. I'm Dutch, and if you know all about the prejudices, you will be able to guess my viewpoint. Sexual relationships outside marriage: morally OK. Abortion: morally OK. Cohabitation outside marriage: morally OK. Obscene language: (depending on present company) morally OK. Gambling (if done small-scale): morally OK. Homosexuality: morally OK. Oh, and Hassan, I just read the Da Vinci Code, which provides an interesting view on Jezus, Maria Magdalena, the Church and Christianity.

 

Lastly, kudos to Phil Fernandes for making a great point.

[Brother Hassan]

One of the reasons people have their own mind, is to make their own moral decisions appropriate to the circumstances. I'm Dutch, and if you know all about the prejudices, you will be able to guess my viewpoint. Sexual relationships outside marriage: morally OK. Abortion: morally OK. Cohabitation outside marriage: morally OK. Obscene language: (depending on present company) morally OK. Gambling (if done small-scale): morally OK. Homosexuality: morally OK. Oh, and Hassan, I just read the Da Vinci Code, which provides an interesting view on Jezus, Maria Magdalena, the Church and Christianity.

 

Lastly, kudos to Phil Fernandes for making a great point.

I disagree with your point of view. When you make morality subjective, you are in essence allowing people to follow their own desires. Who knows in 100 years rape might be morally accepted ...

 

I've read that book. I like to treat works of fiction as fiction & not as facts

[torpex2002]

When you make morality subjective, you are in essence allowing people to follow their own desires.

 

There's no "making" morality subjective, morality IS subjective. Morality is a word which merely describes what various cultures have deemed is best for their culture, what is moral to one culture, nation or individual is NEVER moral to all. At the level of whatever you like, within any culture, state, nation, society and yes even religion, there is disagrement over what should be allowed and shouldn't, and the last time I checked, no thousand year old religiously followed book tells us what the age of consent should be (just as well since Muhammad married someone under the age of 10) nor, by the way, does scripture condemn rape, rather it says a rapist and his rape victim must marry. Scripture even tells us how to keep slaves, that women should be silent, the idea that anyone would genuinely think such books give everyone on the planet an objective sense of things we should and should not do, is to me at least, thoroughly repugnant.

 

Who knows in 100 years rape might be morally accepted ...

 

I trust you won't miss the irony here - it's only because morality IS subjective that we've moved forward from the times when that was the case. If we all followed what many claim to be "humanity's objective guide for morality," women would be the property of men, homosexuals would be stoned to death,* any city with even just one non believer would be burned to the ground, women would be considered "posessed" during their period, the list goes on...

 

So, pretending for a second that we actually do have an objective basis for morality, it's not like any one community, nation or religion agree amongst themselves what it actually is.

 

Whether there is an objective or religious basis for morality is actually irrelevant - the morality that all people subscribe to will still be subjective, blatantly so on all the finer points of what is acceptable in any given culture. That's how humans operate, as social beings in communities. We don't all kill each other for the same reason other species don't, we survive as a group or in groups.

 

I like to treat works of fiction as fiction & not as facts style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

i very much doubt we agree on whether at least one book is fact or fiction, to begin with.

 

In summary then, religious bases for morality are entirely obsolete when it comes to telling people what we should and should not do.

 

However, I'd gladly concede that religion is historically the best way of getting a population to conform to a set of principles, whatever they might be.

Particularly useful in times of hardship, desperation, need, hopelessness, etc.

nothing seems to scare people into doing as they think they ought, more than the notion of an invisible all seeing judge, and an eternal punishment for not complying with it's wishes.

 

 

*not forgetting, many devotees to such ancient writings still do consider these things moral and indeed, obligatory.

[IFeelStupid]

Well, that was a good read. I do think it is possible to consruct an ethical and moral structure without requiring a religious basis. I have to admit that I have not done so (yet). If one wishes to have a moral and ethical structure that would work for most of the worlds societies, one could start by considering the social requirements of the concept of property. That would make theft immoral. Then stealing someone's life would also be immoral, so that takes care of murder. Although the concept of stealing someone's life seems to have expanded quite a bit lately (with identity theft).

[torpex2002]

a good starting place for any philosophy is an extension of what numerous species already have in place, empathy.

 

it is alluded to in biblical scripture, do unto others, etc, which is sound game theory in any group of any animal, reciprocal behaviour, it's in an individuals interest to be nice to others in a group or they will be cast out from it, this is certainly true in most of our cultures, but this philosophy, while recognised by jesus, didnt come from him. it's been around a whole lot longer than him, and in more species than just ours.

 

Put simply, when you do something that will or may affect others, put yourself in their shoes and think about whether you'd want it done to you.

That produces sound morality, whether it's source is religious or not.