Registered Deed of Title to Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-12-2014, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 04:42 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 03:42 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 03:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... our moral views and perceptions are a product of the cultures and societies we find ourselves in, for those of us who have belonged to cultures seeped in ISIS religious values for several hundreds years, our moral frameworks are inheritors of this tradition, whether we like it or not.

I made a substitution that underscores the fundamental absurdity of your position.

So, you disagree with the original statement, seeing as that you want to label it as absurd?

Let's consider one important value, that's quite rich in our western traditions. Our societies seem to hold a very esteemed view of love, of empathy, compassion. We treat it as the highest virtue, that finds itself expressed even among Disney films, and popular tunes, "love is all you need". In fact we're prone to raise figures and actions of profound compassion, as heroes, and heroic deeds, and in many cases the most elevated of all heroic types.

Would you agree this esteemed, and elevated view of love is a product of our cultural rearing, something we've learned and acquired through the beliefs and concepts of culture and societies we find ourselves in? And the same can be said of how we value concepts such as forgiveness, and mercy, that we value such ideas to such an extent as the result of cultural and social influences?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 04:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... So, you disagree with the original statement?

Absolutely. It's rot.

(25-12-2014 04:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... Would you agree this esteemed, and elevated view of love is a product of our cultural rearing, something we've learned and acquired through the beliefs and concepts of culture and societies we find ourselves in?

No. Love's origins arise by biology and sociology. Love is an evolutionary development, it is not "our heart's invention" and certainly not some godly elixir. And it is definitely not something we learn. We learn various ways to express it, and we learn consequences of expressing it, but love itself we don't learn: it's an intrinsic component of our DNA.

(25-12-2014 04:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... And the same can be said of how we value concepts such as forgiveness, and mercy, that we value such ideas to such an extent as the result of cultural and social influences?

It look to me that you're assembling a laundry list of bits of moral cloth you want to pin on religion's clothesline. It won't wash.

Religion is not morality's author, it is it's plagiarizer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
25-12-2014, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 04:59 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 04:47 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 04:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Would you agree this esteemed, and elevated view of love is a product of our cultural rearing, something we've learned and acquired through the beliefs and concepts of culture and societies we find ourselves in?

No. Love's origins arise by biology and sociology. Love is an evolutionary development, it is not "our heart's invention" and certainly not some godly elixir. And it is definitely not something we learn. We learn various ways to express it, and we learn consequences of expressing it, but love itself we don't learn: it's an intrinsic component of our DNA.

So let get this straight.

So when people are led to believe that love is the highest of all virtues, it's our biology that compels us to hold this view?

The beliefs of our culture and society are not required, we can recognize that love is the highest of all virtues, just by our own nature and biology?

Quote:It look to me that you're assembling a laundry list of bits of moral cloth you want to pin on religion's clothesline. It won't wash.

I don't want to pin morality to a religious clothesline, I'm only doing so as the devil's advocate.

Quote:Religion is not morality's author, it is it's plagiarizer.

Exactly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 05:56 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 06:02 PM by gofish!.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(24-12-2014 05:05 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  I've seen this come up in assorted threads, the notion that atheists, not having a moral foundation, use religious morals.

Excuse me?

Is that meant to imply that if I act in a manner someone devout would call "moral", that I was only capable of acting that way because I learned it from religion?

What would be an example of something "moral" that ONLY someone religious would be capable of?

This appropriation of "morality" as if it's the exclusive property of religion is one of the most colossal conceits the religiously sotted parade around.

I'll concede religionists do have title to something; it's theirs outright, but it isn't morality. It's sanctimony. And they can keep it.

To try and bring this back to what I thought was the original point, which I think was religion's claim to ownership of morality, surely there's a simpler solution?

I have yet to see the point of accepting as credible any hypothesis made by religion (including the origin of morals/ethics) when the basic hypothesis of the existence of gods has no evidence to back it up. It's a logical fallacy.

By contrast I would think it more credible to hypothesise that social behaviour in social animals could necessarily be positively selected and refined into social norms in more intelligent/advanced species. Further, ethics has always been the concern of society, so no surprise that a an organisation with claims to a position of power in society would have to have a position on ethics.

Of course, with time, the conflation of religion and ethics is inevitable, as it is with any political organisation. One only has to ignore religion and consider the political world today.

However, the human mind is a wonderful thing and ideas on ethics are continually evolving in response to new challenges in society. Of course, whereas political organisations are as free to evolve as they choose to be, that becomes problematic for religion. After all, when something was written 2000-3000 years ago, it doesn't always age well (witness most dogma from the Roman Catholic church) and it is tough to un-say the word of god.

Another aspect of this discussion is the whole subject of ethics itself. If you limit your view of ethics to that espoused by most religions, you miss some very exciting ideas. Ethical egoism springs to mind here, but I'm sure the real philosophers on this board are howling in laughter at my naivety, ready with their own favourites.

But for me, the greatest shame in conflating ethics and religion in the same discussion is when it descends into a debate about whether a god gave us ethics. Far more amazing is to think that this extraordinary enquiry comes from human minds, pondering what is the best way for us to live.

Simply the act of considering ethics with a critical mind would make this planet far more tolerable if more of us were adopt this habit.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 01:27 AM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 01:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  New testement:
Apostle Paul on observing the moral behavior of the Gentiles:

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness”- Roman 2

Just noticed this.

Conclusion: Paul was an evolutionary psychologist!

Who knew?

Ohmy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-12-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
The "no morality without belief in God (specifically, MY GOD)" is merely a bullshit excuse used by Christians all the time to tell people that they need to be like them. Christianity has existed for a couple thousand years now, while modern man has existed for 200,000 years. That means that for about 99% of our existence, people did not believe in the god worshiped by Christians. For Christians to claim that humans need to believe in their invisible sky daddy in order to be moral is a crock of shit that has a mountain of evidence against it. Even the fundies that claim that the universe is only somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old have absolutely no evidence that worship of the Abrahamic god has existed for that long. Besides, we all know that the Bible is chock full of the condoning of immoral crap which Christians merely turn a blind eye to.

If you are only being a good person because you want to cover your own ass to save yourself from eternal punishment by some invisible man in the sky, then you know what? You're not a good person.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: