The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2015, 04:35 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 02:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I disagree, this should be very explicit if you understand what I am typing.

The Golden Rule is an attempt by man to define altruistic behaviors. These are probably the best biological explanation we have for the underpinnings to our morality.

Then I am still trying to understand your belief that it requires religion to make good people do bad stuff, because this presupposes something about good. You also seem to be under the impression that there where good white people who did own slaves, and support the slave trade, who accepted slavery as the result of a belief in the divine sanction of it.

This picture seems to be one of corruption, but corruption of what exactly? It seems to me this would only hold true if there is some underlying moral direction, revealing the golden rule, as your article stated, as an imperative. That without such an external corruption they would have recognized the wrongness of slavery?

Or in other words you believe there are these components in good people, rooted in their biology, that reveals the wrongness of actions like slavey, and their inabilities to recognize this are the result of some external forces, like religious indoctrinations?


Quote:It is altruistic reciprocation. It is a behavior that has evolved in animals. We are animals.

So it's all rooted in some natural order? Slavery is what an aberration of that natural order?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 04:40 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 04:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 02:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I disagree, this should be very explicit if you understand what I am typing.

The Golden Rule is an attempt by man to define altruistic behaviors. These are probably the best biological explanation we have for the underpinnings to our morality.

Then I am still trying to understand your belief that it requires religion to make good people do bad stuff, because this presupposed something about good. You also seem to be under the impression that certain white people who did own slaves, and support the slave trade, were like good people, who accepted slavery as the result of a belief in the divine sanction of it.

This picture seems to be one of corruption, but corruption of what exactly? It seems to this would only hold true if there is some underlying moral direction, revealing the golden rule, as your article stated, as an imperative. That without such an external corruption they would have recognized the wrongness of slavery.

Or in other words you believe there are these components in good people, rooted in their biology, that reveals the wrongness of actions like slavey, and their inabilities to recognize this are the result of some external forces, like religious indoctrinations?


Quote:It is altruistic reciprocation. It is a behavior that has evolved in animals. We are animals.

So it's all rooted in some natural order? Slavery is what an aberration of that natural order?

At what point did I say it is required that religion be necessary to make a good person do a bad thing? It facilitates it by fooling people into thinking they are performing a moral action.

The golden rule and altruism aren't existent in every species and the behavior changes too.

It exists because of natural selection. Species that behave altruistically are more successful than those that do not.

And this is why we study history and ask ourselves how we'd like to be treated. Then we use this altruistic behavior to make a judgment call as to what is and isn't moral.

Slavery isn't an upset of nature, that assumes humans aren't a part of nature.

We are nature. We are animals.

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, 04:52 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 02:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality is a "to each his own" as that is what it means to be moral, to think about one's actions and consequences.

If morality is relative, a matter of subjectivity, there is no "that is what it means to be moral", anymore so that there is "that is what it means to be a good book". You seem to be arguing that morality is relative, while appealing to some sort of objective basis. You're given to speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and haven't figured out a way to resolve your incoherencies, and just continue to repeat them.


Quote:As for the amoral bit though, you've still completely missed the point. The only way to ensure that I am not a moral actor, is to use someone else's ideas and definitions of moral.

Again, if we are assuming relativism, than there is no "only way to ensure that I am a moral actor".

Quote:This is not a difficult concept. The basic of it are that you can't be moral by doing something under the assumption that someone else has worked out the moral quandary for you.

Nope, if we assume relativism this doesn't follow.

Quote:And you're still missing something else, I am saying the ACTOR is amoral.

Yea, I know your saying that, and that you keep on saying that, but it's not true, if morality is relative, lol. It's not even a truth claim, you're just stating a personal opinion like telling me Taylor Swift is a good musician. Or do you actually think you're telling me something more than that? Like expressing a fact?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 04:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  At what point did I say it is required that religion be necessary to make a good person do a bad thing? It facilitates it by fooling people into thinking they are performing a moral action.

Around the time you paraphrased Steven Weinberg, "A good man left to his own devices will do good. A bad man will do bad. But if you want a good man to do a bad thing, give him religion"


Quote:And this is why we study history and ask ourselves how we'd like to be treated.

What? I don't recall ever studying history and asking myself how I'd like to be treated, lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 02:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The Golden Rule is an attempt by man to define altruistic behaviors. These are probably the best biological explanation we have for the underpinnings to our morality.
I'm not suggesting that the golden rule has no utility, but it is problematic in this way: if you are a masochist, you wish for others to hurt you. Does this make it right to hurt others because you wish it for yourself?

Philosophically speaking the underpinnings of morality is simply an implicitly and explicitly negotiated consensus about what sustainably brings benefits or harms such that civil society is preserved. I prefer to think of it in those terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 06:20 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 05:18 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 02:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The Golden Rule is an attempt by man to define altruistic behaviors. These are probably the best biological explanation we have for the underpinnings to our morality.
I'm not suggesting that the golden rule has no utility, but it is problematic in this way: if you are a masochist, you wish for others to hurt you. Does this make it right to hurt others because you wish it for yourself?

Philosophically speaking the underpinnings of morality is simply an implicitly and explicitly negotiated consensus about what sustainably brings benefits or harms such that civil society is preserved. I prefer to think of it in those terms.

Yes, clearly the golden rule doesn't work as a moral absolute.

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, 06:24 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 04:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 02:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality is a "to each his own" as that is what it means to be moral, to think about one's actions and consequences.

If morality is relative, a matter of subjectivity, there is no "that is what it means to be moral", anymore so that there is "that is what it means to be a good book". You seem to be arguing that morality is relative, while appealing to some sort of objective basis. You're given to speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and haven't figured out a way to resolve your incoherencies, and just continue to repeat them.


Quote:As for the amoral bit though, you've still completely missed the point. The only way to ensure that I am not a moral actor, is to use someone else's ideas and definitions of moral.

Again, if we are assuming relativism, than there is no "only way to ensure that I am a moral actor".

Quote:This is not a difficult concept. The basic of it are that you can't be moral by doing something under the assumption that someone else has worked out the moral quandary for you.

Nope, if we assume relativism this doesn't follow.

Quote:And you're still missing something else, I am saying the ACTOR is amoral.

Yea, I know your saying that, and that you keep on saying that, but it's not true, if morality is relative, lol. It's not even a truth claim, you're just stating a personal opinion like telling me Taylor Swift is a good musician. Or do you actually think you're telling me something more than that? Like expressing a fact?

You don't understand what moral relativism is of you think it means that there can be no moral good or moral bad.

I'm not speaking out of both sides of my mouth, I've gladly told you many times that my moral principles are mine, this is the standard I use to judge morality. But my morals aren't static either, they too are subjective. If someone shows me I adhere to an immoral belief, I'll change it. I don't follow a doctrine that is immutable to change.

And you still don't understand amorality. If you need someone else to walk you through solving a math problem, you didn't solve it, they did. If someone else tells you what is and isn't moral, you're not making the moral decisions, they are.

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, 06:26 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 05:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 04:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  At what point did I say it is required that religion be necessary to make a good person do a bad thing? It facilitates it by fooling people into thinking they are performing a moral action.

Around the time you paraphrased Steven Weinberg, "A good man left to his own devices will do good. A bad man will do bad. But if you want a good man to do a bad thing, give him religion"


Quote:And this is why we study history and ask ourselves how we'd like to be treated.

What? I don't recall ever studying history and asking myself how I'd like to be treated, lol.

You've assumed I meant that in an absolute sense that religion must be necessary in order to make a good man do a bad thing. Either you've read way too much into what I've posted or you've not understood most of it. Or you're being intentionally obtuse.

As for history, we study the past as a way of helping us understand and to hopefully not make the same mistakes twice. The "you" was proverbial, I didn't think that necessary to point out.

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, 06:28 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 04:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If morality is relative, a matter of subjectivity, there is no "that is what it means to be moral", anymore so that there is "that is what it means to be a good book". You seem to be arguing that morality is relative, while appealing to some sort of objective basis. You're given to speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and haven't figured out a way to resolve your incoherencies, and just continue to repeat them.
I agree with you Tomasia, morality can't be subjective, not in a way where saying X is moral or Y is immoral has any meaning beyond a personal opinion.
(15-02-2015 04:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:As for the amoral bit though, you've still completely missed the point. The only way to ensure that I am not a moral actor, is to use someone else's ideas and definitions of moral.

Again, if we are assuming relativism, than there is no "only way to ensure that I am a moral actor".
Again, I agree with Tomasia.
In subjective morality it is very murky as to whether a person is a moral actor.
Person A could be doing only moral acts and avoiding immoral acts per their own subjective moral beliefs and yet since person B's moral beliefs are different, person B can judge person A as being immoral, perhaps by conincidence person C doesn't consider Person A as doing anything immoral hence we have a situation where both person A and person C view person A as being moral whereas person B views person A as being immoral.
So is person A moral or immoral?
Regarding "being a moral actor", I assume that means that the moral actor believes they have knowledge of right and wrong and feels a moral obligation to behave moral as opposed to immoral. In that sense anyone who has moral beliefs is a moral actor, regardless if they workout their moral beliefs themselves or if they go along with morals taught by someone else (e.g. religious leader).
(15-02-2015 04:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:And you're still missing something else, I am saying the ACTOR is amoral.
Yea, I know your saying that, and that you keep on saying that, but it's not true, if morality is relative, lol. It's not even a truth claim, you're just stating a personal opinion like telling me Taylor Swift is a good musician. Or do you actually think you're telling me something more than that? Like expressing a fact?
You guys need to define your words better, I am pretty sure you are talking cross purposes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 06:49 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 06:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 04:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If morality is relative, a matter of subjectivity, there is no "that is what it means to be moral", anymore so that there is "that is what it means to be a good book". You seem to be arguing that morality is relative, while appealing to some sort of objective basis. You're given to speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and haven't figured out a way to resolve your incoherencies, and just continue to repeat them.
I agree with you Tomasia, morality can't be subjective, not in a way where saying X is moral or Y is immoral has any meaning beyond a personal opinion.
(15-02-2015 04:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Again, if we are assuming relativism, than there is no "only way to ensure that I am a moral actor".
Again, I agree with Tomasia.
In subjective morality it is very murky as to whether a person is a moral actor.
Person A could be doing only moral acts and avoiding immoral acts per their own subjective moral beliefs and yet since person B's moral beliefs are different, person B can judge person A as being immoral, perhaps by conincidence person C doesn't consider Person A as doing anything immoral hence we have a situation where both person A and person C view person A as being moral whereas person B views person A as being immoral.
So is person A moral or immoral?
Regarding "being a moral actor", I assume that means that the moral actor believes they have knowledge of right and wrong and feels a moral obligation to behave moral as opposed to immoral. In that sense anyone who has moral beliefs is a moral actor, regardless if they workout their moral beliefs themselves or if they go along with morals taught by someone else (e.g. religious leader).
(15-02-2015 04:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, I know your saying that, and that you keep on saying that, but it's not true, if morality is relative, lol. It's not even a truth claim, you're just stating a personal opinion like telling me Taylor Swift is a good musician. Or do you actually think you're telling me something more than that? Like expressing a fact?
You guys need to define your words better, I am pretty sure you are talking cross purposes.

I've defined this multiple times and given examples.

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: