morality without religion
do you guys think it is possible to hold moral values without being religious? we were talking about morals today in world religions and i guess it's an interesting topic. religions such as islam advocate that you shouldn't drink, kill, steal, etc, but at the same time a lot of the morals religions preach are universal- i.e. no lying. if anything, do you think it was religion that made society adopt morals?
i mean i know there are a ton of extremists who consider themselves to be picture perfect worshipers, but i'm talking about the masses right now.
November 22, 2010
21 Comments • Newest first
yes, you can be moral without spirituality. your morality would be in yourself, or a cause you believe in without ties to religion, for example, sustaining procreation of the human race.
Moral is present even without religion :]
[quote=yourMISTAKEN]not just about the rules. We aren't machines, we can think for our selves, while some can't.[/quote]
Thinking arrives at conclusions. Conclusions aren't always nice.
not just about the rules. We aren't machines, we can think for our selves, while some can't.
Yes of course. You don't have to believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus to know right from wrong.
[quote=Billionz]It is possible for a world without religion. But I don't think people will be motivated to listen to what is good and what is bad without religion. This is the cause of human nature. If religion wasn't practiced by people, then there would be bloodshed.
Romans liked war. They enjoyed life as much as they can. Shintoists follows the emperor. The emperor is the god. Some tribes on earth have their own beliefs that might be war, fighting, and stuff that are very violent and painful and hateful.
Hitler opposed religion. He chose to kill thousands of Jews. Coincidence? Well that depends. There are bunch of nice people that does not follow a religion.[/quote]
Well to be clear Hitler didn't oppose religion, he just used the Jews as well as other groups as scapegoats for the Germans to blame for their problems. It's been said that he himself was a 'Christian' anyways, though of course he wasn't a well-practicing one...
It is possible for a world without religion. But I don't think people will be motivated to listen to what is good and what is bad without religion. This is the cause of human nature. If religion wasn't practiced by people, then there would be bloodshed.
Romans liked war. They enjoyed life as much as they can. Shintoists follows the emperor. The emperor is the god. Some tribes on earth have their own beliefs that might be war, fighting, and stuff that are very violent and painful and hateful.
Hitler opposed religion. He chose to kill thousands of Jews. Coincidence? Well that depends. There are bunch of nice people that does not follow a religion.
@naruto1233: You're defining essentially [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism]moral absolutism[/url] (please excuse my use of Wikipedia; it has references on it which you can use to verify), and according to the referenced page you can still claim that some actions can be morally wrong absolutely (they actually do use the example of stealing), without referencing religion or God, as it can be claimed to be something inherently ingrained within human nature. There [i]is[/i] a whole number of viewpoints on morality in philosophy, so I'm sure there are points and counterpoints to your point of view as well as mine.
So to answer the "how can humans come up with what is right or wrong," one possible answer is : "human nature", which is does not necessarily follow from "God."
As for the atheists not having any basis, again, human nature can be an answer; how else would an atheist have similar (if not virtually identical) morals to that of a religious person?
And for the last claim, that is assuming that true religion exists. Look at the many derivatives of religions as well as the many distinct ones out there; who are you to say your religion is any more valid than anyone else's? So assuming that there is a God, then there can be true religion. If not, then there is no true religion for which morality would stem from in your argument.
[quote=Applesnacks]Its very easy to know what is morally good or not without religion.
Generally, if it causes pain/unhappiness, then it is unmoral.
Anyone care to disagree on this?[/quote]
Education and the school system.
Ontopic: I think many of our modern morals are derived from religion, so we can't say that they're absolutely independent.
Well, I think that morality did become stressed with the coming of the major religions, but it's definitely possible to be a good, atheist person.
Its very easy to know what is morally good or not without religion.
Generally, if it causes pain/unhappiness, then it is unmoral.
Anyone care to disagree on this?
morals are a basic structure of human life/society so it's sort of impossible NOT to have morals.
[quote=naruto1233]The basis for morality can only come from something that is perfect and incorruptible (God). Otherwise that morality is imperfect and corrupt.
Morality is an aspect of God's character. He is infinitely just, good, and omnipotent, and therefore morality stems from that. It does not exist separate from him, or it is not his decision either.[/quote]
"The basis for morality can only come from something that is perfect and incorruptible" -- Citation needed. You assume firstly that morality or even the basis for it is well grounded. However, morality is generally accepted as being subjective. Also, you make the assumption that *if* morality is not subjective, that it has to come from an absolute source of good/perfection. In my opinion, morality is subjective and is completely separate from religion. Just because religion contains ethics and a moral background does not imply that religion was the source of both of them. On the contrary, I'd say that morals was one of the foundations upon which religion was founded. If you think about it, the concept of morals is much simpler than religion, and so I'd say that it was created by humans first.
People should read Wild Justice by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, they talk about the presence of a moral code among the animal kingdom, where religion has no merit.
If there is no religion, there is no basis for morals. And no, people haven't just "invented" morals. Everyone is capable of determining at least some rights from wrongs. The ability to do this is derives from religion. There is no scientific principle as of date that explains moral behavior. Honestly, unless you've gone out and killed someone just because you felt like it, don't bother arguing against the existence of morals.
[quote=nefarious456]I have no religion, but i try to follow the golden rule taught in Buddhism as it's pretty much the basis for all morals.[/quote]
Pretty much this for me.
Religion has been a catalyst in the establishment of many human civilization by giving people moral code based on lies. However, I think it's possible for one to
have morality without awareness of religion.
Religion, in general, is basically two parts: the belief in a higher power(s) and moral laws you must obey usually set by those powers. You can definitely have moral codes without the belief in a higher power.
Yes it is possible. I am not at all religious and I consider myself a good and moral person.
[quote=Underfree]People will argue that since humans created religion, they incorporated what they saw as "moral" into that creation.[/quote]
some religions were "founded", and not created.
well one might argue that morals are not dependent on religion, but isn't it religion that set to tone for what's "good" and what's "bad"?
i mean, we are supposed to act good in order to please god, as a religious person would say. didn't religion give the basic code of conduct?
Morality is not dependent upon religion. Rather, it's the other way around.