Religion and Morality

B

battig1370

Registered Senior Member
Morality: > principles conerning the difference between right and wrong


Are human morals defined from the religion that they are born in, and are there universal right and wrong behaviour?
 
We have an innate sense of wrong and right. However that sense is flawed.
It's a sense of fairness. And fair for human beings is very relative. Problem is we often don't know what is fair rather we equate every thing to what is unfair...and that is an imperfect measurement of equality as anything can disgruntle fair.

Religion has offered clear boundaries and established a code of behvavior. It's an absolute rather than arbitrary.
 
battig1370 said:
Morality: > principles conerning the difference between right and wrong


Are human morals defined from the religion that they are born in, and are there universal right and wrong behaviour?
Click to expand...


My own belief is that morals are definetely not derived soley from religion. Religous texts and scriptures CAN provide a sort of roadmap for moral behaviour but this does not explain why some of the most moral people I know are atheists.
I believe it is that "inner voice" or "inner self" within all of us(believers or non believers) that emanates directly from God that provides the strongest moral code.

While some religous texts do go into great detail about moral behaviour which most decent people can relate to, they also unfortunately have very dark portions . Example: Portrayals of God being warlike,quick tempered,jealous, condoning rape,slavery and often outright genocide that should make any moralistic person squirm in discomfort.
 
Yes. I would squirm at a god capable of such actions.

But...an "inner voice." This doesn't sound logical. If this inner voice existed certainly civilization would not be in such a disparaging state.
 
Saquist said:
Yes. I would squirm at a god capable of such actions.

But...an "inner voice." This doesn't sound logical. If this inner voice existed certainly civilization would not be in such a disparaging state.
Click to expand...

Well, since our concept of God differs this is to be expected ,but I look at it this way ...the ego masking the inner self or "voice" so not all will heed to it.
 
Saquist said:
But if the commonality of us all is the prediliction to badness then perhaps that voice is not God.
Click to expand...

As I thought I explained I believe the inner self to be the God part and our human ego as being the bad part. The ego being very strong at times does not allow us to listen to the "good" part.

Well, that's just my take on the issue.
Perhaps others will post their views as well.
 
There's no reason to believe basic morality isn't part of our evolution. It's been discussed here before.
 
Saquist said:
Well you explained how...as to the Ego...but not the why.
Click to expand...

The why being that because in our state in the duality of the physical world we do not realize our oneness with God as it is masked by the ignorance of the ego.
The challenge is to cast off your ego and like the great prophets of history, Krishna,Christ,Budha ,etc, realize that oneness with God.
 
Right and wrong are fine concepts but relative to what?

To an innate murderer to kill someone is the right thing to do.

We first need to define the objective to be achieved and then right and wrong become clearer. For example is the long term survival of the group more important than the indiviudal? In this case I can imagine a scenerio where it is "right" to sacrifice one individual to save the group. Communism had the concept that the whole is more important than the parts and that individual freedoms could be curtailed if that helped the whole.

Right and wrong within theistic religion is derived from the rules allegedly established by a deity. These rules are to be obeyed whether they make rational sense or not since only the deity can see the "big picture". In the case of Christianity for example the bible states that anyone who wears clothes of mixed cloth should be put to death. Huh!

Another perspective is that "survival" is the objective and that right and wrong is determined by whatever provides the best chance of survival. In this case if an atatcker attempts to kill me then it is right for me to kill them instead to ensure my survival.

So is morality an absolute as religions like Christianity would have us believe or should it be something rational and relative to our needs?

The 10 commandments are often stated as a good case of moral rules but I would argue the opposite. These are written in the form of commands to be blindly obeyed. I would argue that we are capable of rational thought and can derive the right action if we have a clear common objective. My personal morality is based on the concept that the survival of the individual is paramount and I don't need commandments to tell me how to act.
 
Saquist said:
We have an innate sense of wrong and right. However that sense is flawed.


Have you ever heard of the farrow children? These are children that have been abandoned from human care for a very lengthy time. The most serious cases are that these children have not developed a sense of wrong and right and they have not learned language.

I conclude that humans are not born with an innate sense of wrong and right, but morality is learned from the cultural/religious belief system that human is exposed to.
Click to expand...
 
Saquist said:
Yes. I would squirm at a god capable of such actions.

But...an "inner voice." This doesn't sound logical. If this inner voice existed certainly civilization would not be in such a disparaging state.
Click to expand...

Well, our "inner voice" is silenced by our brains, ever since our mothers tought us how to live in this wretched society. Why do you think animals never get depressed or commit suicide? they don´t have to act according to society standards.
Animals only go crazy or depressed when we put them in a cage, that is what society do to us, all of us.
 
Saquist:

You claim that religions' moral codes are absolute and not arbitrary.

Is it the moral code of the bible that you claim to follow?

If so, I'm betting you pick and choose which parts to follow, rather than following all the dictates of the bible to the letter.
 
What is moral or immoral is strongly tied to a religious cultures with a god/deity that has given them the knowledge of what is moral and immoral.

The problem here is which of the religious belief system in the world have the truth when they speak of what is moral or immoral? In what we call the western world, christian believe that christianity has the truth to what is moral and immoral, but there is debate here also on what is moral and immoral because of its sub groups.

There is a great divide within christianity on what is moral and immoral. e.g. War, abortion, sexual behaviour and other types of behaviours.
 
battig1370 said:
What is moral or immoral is strongly tied to a religious cultures with a god/deity that has given them the knowledge of what is moral and immoral.
The problem here is which of the religious belief system in the world have the truth when they speak of what is moral or immoral? In what we call the western world, christian believe that christianity has the truth to what is moral and immoral, but there is debate here also on what is moral and immoral because of its sub groups.
There is a great divide within christianity on what is moral and immoral. e.g. War, abortion, sexual behaviour and other types of behaviours.
Click to expand...

Mahavira used to teach that to kill ANY living creature is bad Karma, including small insects.
So his followers consider walking at night a crime, because you would kill many insects.

The jainists are vegetarian, because they think to eat meat is violent, so they don´t think Jesus was enlightened, because he ate fish.
How can Jesus be a Buddha if he used to eat fish?

If we put together all religious beliefs tto create a "Universal law of right and wrong", we would have to stop breathing and stop eathing. Maybe that way we don´t kill as much bacteria as we do when we breath.

All this is BS.
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
Mahavira used to teach that to kill ANY living creature is bad Karma, including small insects.
So his followers consider walking at night a crime, because you would kill many insects.

The jainists are vegetarian, because they think to eat meat is violent, so they don´t think Jesus was enlightened, because he ate fish.
How can Jesus be a Buddha if he used to eat fish?

If we put together all religious beliefs tto create a "Universal law of right and wrong", we would have to stop breathing and stop eathing. Maybe that way we don´t kill as much bacteria as we do when we breath.

All this is BS.
Click to expand...
I agree totally. Morality should be common fuckin sense. Why do we need religions to tell us this?
 
battig1370 said:
Morality: > principles conerning the difference between right and wrong


Are human morals defined from the religion that they are born in, and are there universal right and wrong behaviour?
Click to expand...

Human morals are defined by humans. I would say that religion seriously affects the "defining." Also there is a difference in right/wrong and good/evil.

Thank you, His Son,
><>Warrior61<><
 
mikenostic said:
I agree totally. Morality should be common fuckin sense. Why do we need religions to tell us this?
Click to expand...

So what happens when someone murders and it is common sense? Also why is the world messed up so bad that we have to some how undo the "wrong" and make the "right?"

Thank you, His Son,
><>Warrior61<><
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top