The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2015, 06:53 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 06:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
The difference here is that you are talking about the standard rather than the decision making.

A moral actor makes a free choice between an action that is believed to be good/moral and and action that is believed to be bad/immoral.
The choice is that of the moral actor.
It doesn't matter that the actor got their moral standard from someone else.
Lets say that our moral actor is a Catholic and the Pope tells them that it is immoral to perform IVF procedure. This moral actor believes the Pope and hence believes it is immoral to perform IVF.
Their wife desperately wants a kid that is genetically hers, but they are struggling to conceive, she asks him to go through IVF. He is now faced with a moral choice (according to his own belief system) He can do an immoral act of IVF and make the wife happy or he can refuse on moral grounds and make his wife angry. It is still his choice regardless of where his belief in right and wrong come from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
15-02-2015, 06:56 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 06:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 06:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
The difference here is that you are talking about the standard rather than the decision making.

A moral actor makes a free choice between an action that is believed to be good/moral and and action that is believed to be bad/immoral.
The choice is that of the moral actor.
It doesn't matter that the actor got their moral standard from someone else.
Lets say that our moral actor is a Catholic and the Pope tells them that it is immoral to perform IVF procedure. This moral actor believes the Pope and hence believes it is immoral to perform IVF.
Their wife desperately wants a kid that is genetically hers, but they are struggling to conceive, she asks him to go through IVF. He is now faced with a moral choice (according to his own belief system) He can do an immoral act of IVF and make the wife happy or he can refuse on moral grounds and make his wife angry. It is still his choice regardless of where his belief in right and wrong come from.

The actor might make a moral choice as to whether or not to choose to adhere to the moral system of a particular belief system, but the moral nature of that system is fixed by someone other than them.

So they accept opinion of someone else's morality in order to make a choice. Making them an amoral actor. They assume that they've made a choice based on a correct moral arbiter, but they've not actually made a moral choice when it comes to the decision (the decision to or not to use IVF in your example).

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, 06:59 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
This highlights the subjective nature of morality. And it's the reason I've asked Tomasia about how it seems curious that someone's preconceived ideas about morality, seem to shape their opinions on the moral codes of the religions they adhere to.

Or to put it another way, Jesus is always on their side. If they don't like gay people, suddenly Jesus is anti-gay. If they want to help the poor, Jesus is on their side, but if they prefer their greed then they find scriptures to justify not helping.

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, 07:02 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
In religious codes for morality, the choice is an illusion. It's like a Christian saying people choose to go to hell. That is complete rubbish. It's a false choice.

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, 07:04 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 06:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't understand what moral relativism is of you think it means that there can be no moral good or moral bad.

If we are to take relativism as true, than yes there is no moral good or moral bad, that amounts to anything more than a series of decorative frills of personal opinion. A claim that an action is immoral, amounts to no more than you telling me Taylor Swift is a horrible musician. You have your own personal criteria as to what constitutes a good musician, a personal standard to judge good and bad musicians, that doesn't apply to anyone other than to yourself.

But let me guess you don't think this is true?

Quote: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.

Stop using analogies such as math problem, where there are objectively right and wrong answers, it'll probably help clear up any confusion.

And who says following a set of some preordered commands is not moral? What if I, unlike you, believed the standard in which any action is moral or immoral is whether it adheres to these preordered commands. If you don't have an objective basis to tell me that I am wrong, than how do you even have a leg to stand on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 07:08 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 07:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 06:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't understand what moral relativism is of you think it means that there can be no moral good or moral bad.

If we are to take relativism as true, than yes there is no moral good or moral bad, that amounts to anything more than series of decorative frills of personal opinion. A claim that an action is immoral, amounts to no more than you telling me Taylor Swift is a horrible musician. You have own personal criteria as to what constitutes a good musician, a personal standard to judge good and bad musicians, that doesn't apply to anyone other than to yourself.

But let me guess you don't think this is true?

Quote: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.

Stop using analogies such as math problem, where there are objectively right and wrong answers, it'll probably help clear up any confusion.

And who says following a set of some preordered commands is not moral? What if I, unlike you, believed the standard in which any action is moral or immoral is whether it adheres to these preordered commands. If you don't have an objective basis to tell me that I am wrong, than how do you even have a leg to stand on?

Of course there is moral good and moral bad. As I've already said, that is subject to the moral standards of the individual.

Objective morality isn't necessary in order to call an action or actor moral or immoral.

My math example is perfectly fine. Assume it's a quadratic where multiple real and non-real answers satisfy the equation.

You might believe following commandments is moral, you're fine to believe that. The Nazis thought that too when they listened to Hitler. If you assume it is moral because of its source, you forfeit the ability to evaluate it as moral or immoral. Because you are assuming it is moral from the beginning.

It's presuppositional morality.

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, 07:12 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Or assume my math problem is a limit as x approaches y where the answer is not knowable and must instead be inferred.

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, 07:28 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
And the subjective nature or morality is why we can look at the past and say that society once held immoral beliefs and views as though they were moral. That is because we hold them up to our moral standards today.

Morality is not objective, and religion is not necessary for morality. Religion applies a set of codes to the religious to adhere to under the guise that it is for their own good, and then tells them not to question it under fear of eternal torment.

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, 07:29 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
That isn't moral. That isn't good. It is indoctrination. And religion is the all-time champion of bullshit as George Carlin would say.

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, 07:33 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(15-02-2015 06:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The actor might make a moral choice as to whether or not to choose to adhere to the moral system of a particular belief system, but the moral nature of that system is fixed by someone other than them.

So they accept opinion of someone else's morality in order to make a choice.
Yes but in their heads it is either "the opinion of someone else's morality" or a belief that the other party is presenting a group of "moral facts".
You and me would consider the Pope's moral claims to be his opinion, some of his followers would consider it to be infallible fact.

(15-02-2015 06:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Making them an amoral actor.
But they still have a "free" choice. Most, if not all believers "sin" (do immoral things according to their own beliefs). They have a belief system of right and wrong and they have the ability to make wrong choices. In my opinion they can be classified as moral actors.
(15-02-2015 06:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They assume that they've made a choice based on a correct moral arbiter, but they've not actually made a moral choice when it comes to the decision (the decision to or not to use IVF in your example).
How is it not a moral choice? They have believed IVF to be wrong, and they have made a choice between not having IVF (moral) and having IVF (immoral) as per their own beliefs.

(15-02-2015 07:02 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In religious codes for morality, the choice is an illusion. It's like a Christian saying people choose to go to hell. That is complete rubbish. It's a false choice.
Yeah, I think the religious people often choose to do "immoral" acts, probably because the religious organisations set them up to fail. I mean they make it so that they are sinners just from being born, sinners for having sexual desires, sinners for wanting a better life for themselves, sinners for doubting god's existence...
Although, granted being born isn't a choice, sexual desire isn't a choice...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: