The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(09-02-2015 08:55 AM)Ace Wrote:  the intentions are to actualize a desirable outcome
if it ensures the survival of the species then its moral/right/good/justified etc

So would these intentions have to be reserved for a particular set of desirable outcomes?

Would the reason have to be to ensure the survival of the species?

I want to get a promotion (desirable outcome).

I volunteered at a local food drive, because I know my boss will be there, and will likely consider promoting me for volunteering. I volunteered at this food drive for no other reason then to leave a good impression with my boss, for the sake of getting promoted.

Could we say my intentions were moral then, since they were to actualize a desirable outcome?

Or is there only a handful of desirable outcomes, which would make the intentions moral ones?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 10:40 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 10:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is there religious components to people's moral beliefs?

Not necessarily.

Sure, not necessarily, particularly if you're not religious.

But we can say for some people this would be the case, that there are religious components to their moral beliefs? Particularly in regards to religious people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 10:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 03:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Why use the bible to condone slavery? Because they feel divinely authorized to do something that they wouldn't want done to them. It's the notion of "making a good man do a bad thing" I kept saying that you don't seem to have understood.

What does not having to it done to them, have to do with divinely authorization? I'm not sure what you're implying here? I'm trying to understand this alternative narrative you're spinning?

That without this "divine" authorization, slavery would have been severally crippled? Because people would have realized that they shouldn't be authorizing things that they don't want done to them on others?

Do you think there were all these good white folks, who would have never of supported slavery, or owned slaves, but did so because of their belief in a divine authorization?

If so, on what basis would they have known this? As a result of their basic biology, which was overshadowed by their religious beliefs?


Quote:We have largely gotten nowhere because you dodge questions.

Sorry, I've been out and about for the past few weeks, but this discussion seems to have some sort of communication barrier, where it doesn't seem like my points are even being understand, and I also seem to have a hard time making sense of yours, like the one I responded to above.

And I'm not particularly sure how to get over this particular barrier, so it seems like we're repetitiously going through this same process. And it all seems rather tedious. So perhaps I have grown bored with it?

Quote:On the one hand, you imply it doesn't matter if morality is objective or subjective, now you're using it as an excuse to say that there is no point in arguing because of how we've each defined morality.

If two people define the terms differently, they can't really argue can they? It's like a person who likes country, and another who likes Hip Hop, arguing over who the better artist is between, Garth Brooks, and Nas. We'd have to sort of agree to disagree.


Quote:I'll put it this way, the entirety of the thread is based on a complete failure to acknowledge one simple fact, there is no religious component to morality.

How about we ask the question differently

Is there religious components to people's moral beliefs?

"What does not having to it done to them, have to do with divinely authorization? I'm not sure what you're implying here? I'm trying to understand this alternative narrative you're spinning?

That without this "divine" authorization, slavery would have been severally crippled? Because people would have realized that they shouldn't be authorizing things that they don't want done to them on others?

Do you think there were all these good white folks, who would have never of supported slavery, or owned slaves, but did so because of their belief in a divine authorization?

If so, on what basis would they have known this? As a result of their basic biology, which was overshadowed by their religious beliefs?"


The golden rule, which is a moral understanding that predates most of the major religions.

Divine authorization and instruction is explicit in the bible for slavery. They felt justified in owning slaves. I believe I have said this multiple times now.

Yes, there were very clearly good people (white or otherwise) who recognized the immoral nature of slavery. Some even went so far as to recognize it and then voluntarily release their slaves.

The basis would be subjective. The individual would have made that decision. Because morals and morality is subjective. (that means that you have to actually think about it)

"Sorry, I've been out and about for the past few weeks, but this discussion seems to have some sort of communication barrier, where it doesn't seem like my points are even being understand, and I also seem to have a hard time making sense of yours, like the one I responded to above."

The communication barrier seems to be on your end. I understand what you are trying and have been trying to say, it's just that it's wrong.


"And I'm not particularly sure how to get over this particular barrier, so it seems like we're repetitiously going through this same process. And it all seems rather tedious. So perhaps I have grown bored with it?

If two people define the terms differently, they can't really argue can they? It's like a person who likes country, and another who likes Hip Hop, arguing over who the better artist is between, Garth Brooks, and Nas. We'd have to sort of agree to disagree."


You're not simply defining terms differently, you're apparently arguing from the stance of something that doesn't exist. Then you ignore points I have made and don't answer questions.

You've still not acknowledged the amoral issue and that you are incorrect.


"How about we ask the question differently

Is there religious components to people's moral beliefs?"


Some people believe that they are following moral commandments, but that is amoral at best when they are following it assuming it is moral.

And when people follow the rules and guidelines from a book that condones slavery and bashing babies upon rocks, it is pretty safe to say that they are incorporating many amoral views into their worldview.

Another question I posed to you regarding this was to point this out. It is always curious that people find ways to justify their views and moral opinions in the bible by selectively choosing what does and doesn't apply.

Or to put it another way, isn't it curious that someone's preconceived opinions form their interpretation of the supposedly absolute morals of religion?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 10:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 10:40 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not necessarily.

Sure, not necessarily, particularly if you're not religious.

But we can say for some people this would be the case, that there are religious components to their moral beliefs? Particularly in regards to religious people.

If they use a religion as a basis for their morals, they are amoral actors. They are neither moral or immoral.

But if you point out the inherently immoral nature of their religion's moral code, and they choose to ignore it, then I feel justified in calling them immoral.

It would be akin to pointing out to a Nazi that there isn't actually a difference between the races, and they still cling to their notions of white superiority. They may simply have been blindly adhering to the teachings of their doctrine, but when they become complacent and willfully ignorant to continue to justify it, they are immoral.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 10:57 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 11:01 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 10:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 10:40 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not necessarily.

Sure, not necessarily, particularly if you're not religious.

But we can say for some people this would be the case, that there are religious components to their moral beliefs? Particularly in regards to religious people.

Of course.

(15-02-2015 10:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 10:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sure, not necessarily, particularly if you're not religious.

But we can say for some people this would be the case, that there are religious components to their moral beliefs? Particularly in regards to religious people.

If they use a religion as a basis for their morals, they are amoral actors. They are neither moral or immoral.

I don't get that BeardedOne. I think this must mean I'm a moral relativist.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 12:28 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2015 12:32 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 10:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The golden rule, which is a moral understanding that predates most of the major religions.

How does that work? I mean if people acted in to be in accordance with some rule, wouldn’t that mean they were acting amorally as per your definition?

Either way, so you think there’s this underlying moral direction, summed up as the golden rule, that operates on us, perhaps at some inner level, that gets clouded, or even denied by religious beliefs? This is kind of what you were trying to imply in how good people get corrupted by religion to do bad things? Because good people know to act in ways according to the golden rule, and it’s only when they’re led to believe in actions that are counter to this, on the basis of divine authority, that they are able to do bad things?

Is this sort of a summary of what you believe?

Quote:You're not simply defining terms differently, you're apparently arguing from the stance of something that doesn't exist. Then you ignore points I have made and don't answer questions.

The only thing I’m referring to as being defined differently, is what makes or doesn’t make something moral. Even Girlyman doesn’t seem to particularly agree with your particular definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 12:35 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 10:57 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 10:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sure, not necessarily, particularly if you're not religious.

But we can say for some people this would be the case, that there are religious components to their moral beliefs? Particularly in regards to religious people.

Of course.

(15-02-2015 10:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If they use a religion as a basis for their morals, they are amoral actors. They are neither moral or immoral.

I don't get that BeardedOne. I think this must mean I'm a moral relativist.

We're all moral relativists

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-02-2015, 12:40 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 12:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 10:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The golden rule, which is a moral understanding that predates most of the major religions.

How does that work? I mean if people acted in to be in accordance with some rule, wouldn’t that mean they were acting amorally as per your definition?

Either way, so you think there’s this underlying moral direction, summed up as the golden rule, that operates on us, perhaps at some inner level, that gets clouded, or even denied by religious beliefs? This is kind of what you were trying to imply in how good people get corrupted by religion to do bad things? Because good people know to act in ways according to the golden rule, and it’s only when they’re led to believe in actions that are counter to this, on the basis of divine authority, that they are able to do bad things?

Is this sort of a summary of what you believe?

Quote:You're not simply defining terms differently, you're apparently arguing from the stance of something that doesn't exist. Then you ignore points I have made and don't answer questions.

The only thing I’m referring to as being defined differently, is what makes or doesn’t make something moral. Even Girlyman doesn’t seem to particularly agree with your particular definition.

It's not relevant if girly agrees or not, I disagree with him too if he believes that acting on moral commandments without thinking about them makes one amoral.

"How does that work? I mean if people acted in to be in accordance with some rule, wouldn’t that mean they were acting amorally as per your definition? "

Acting by following the rules under the assumption they are moral, is amoral. You're not using any sort of moral judgment if you use someone else's moral judgement.

"Either way, so you think there’s this underlying moral direction, summed up as the golden rule, that operates on us, perhaps at some inner level, that gets clouded, or even denied by religious beliefs? This is kind of what you were trying to imply in how good people get corrupted by religion to do bad things? Because good people know to act in ways according to the golden rule, and it’s only when they’re led to believe in actions that are counter to this, on the basis of divine authority, that they are able to do bad things? "

Altruism and altruistic behavior. It isn't a moral rule, it's a relativistic behavior shared by many species.

Good people are corrupted by fundamentalist beliefs, be that religion or whatever. They act out of fear and follow rules and guidelines that they'd otherwise not.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 12:40 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 12:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We're all moral relativists

And wouldn't that mean your judgment: "If they use a religion as a basis for their morals, they are amoral actors. They are neither moral or immoral.", is relative as well?

If so, who would it be relative to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 12:45 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 12:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 12:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We're all moral relativists

And wouldn't that mean your judgment: "If they use a religion as a basis for their morals, they are amoral actors. They are neither moral or immoral.", is relative as well?

If so, who would it be relative to?

My judgement and opinion isn't the same as my morals.

Relative to everyone else. To you. To girly. To the 15th century commoner.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: