Religion is a matter of perspective

[Raithere]

Originally posted by everneo
if you enjoy doing this. for that matter, would you really have sex with her if she likes.? no way your friend is going to know that. unless he knows no harm is done to him emotionally if you are healthy.
What is the reason for not doing that..?
or reason-based morality is not as effective as morality not based on reasoning alone.?

Hope you don't mind if I respond.

There are several rational reasons not to do so:

1. Loyalty and honor (not acting against the interests of your friends, keeping your promises, being truthful) are rationally defensible moral values.

2. You are lying to yourself if you think that there is no chance you will be found out, particularly if you continue in such a relationship

3. Regardless if you get caught or not you are in fact causing emotional distress to his wife and yourself. You are adding to the problems and complications in your marital relationships.

Any questions?

~Raithere

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Raithere
To some extent, yes they are. Morals are the basic rules of a society, they form a base set of rules for interaction between its members. As such there is a certain amount of reason behind their development. This fact is apparent in their function. What is the function of "Thou shall not murder" for instance? Quite simply, a society cannot function if its members go hacking away at each other at whim. The most common moral codes are usually this self-evident.

Raithere,
We want to know in lament term the origin of morality, and your self-evident example above does not really cut it.

You have stated that morals are the basic rules of a society and that they form a base set of rules for interaction between its members. My question then :
Are these developed set of morals codes or common denominators for a society represent justice? A moral code must be just as a simple prerequisite for it's success, and what is justice? Can Justice be served on an individual level and a society level at the same time? You can't say yes to that, unless you are willing to simplify a human being to a domino game, and that is where your moral code fails. It has holes and gaps that needs religion to complete.

 

[(Q)]

It has holes and gaps that needs religion to complete.

On the contrary, it is religion that has caused the system to fail in the first place by placing barriers on that which religion considers immoral.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by (Q)
It has holes and gaps that needs religion to complete.

On the contrary, it is religion that has caused the system to fail in the first place by placing barriers on that which religion considers immoral.

Q,

You wouldn't understand the concept of religion that I'm speaking about even if you get stuck like a dear in it's headlight.

My religion doesn't involve a church, mosque, artificial walls, others judging me and the color of my dress, other people, ect......It's the essence of my everyday life, my family, my responsbilities, ect.....My life is the walls of my church and an outlook to others and everyone I deal with is a member of this religion that doesn't belong to me or them.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Our church

Originally posted by Flores
Q,

You wouldn't understand the concept of religion that I'm speaking about even if you get stuck like a dear in it's headlight.

My religion doesn't involve a church, mosque, artificial walls, others judging me and the color of my dress, other people, ect......It's the essence of my everyday life, my family, my responsbilities, ect.....My life is the walls of my church and an outlook to others and everyone I deal with is a member of this religion that doesn't belong to me or them.

Dear Flores, my spiritual sister, (hope you don't mind me saying that!), from your beautiful description of "your church", I'm convinced that we share the same type of church and the same Creator. It's too bad Xians can't see it this way. They're addicted to a man-made organization that worships a radical dead rabbi. And would you believe it? They think this dead rabbi is gonna ensure them eternal life!

Your comment about Xians getting "stuck like a deer in the headlights," that's how they are about their faith--in shock and awe. They actually think the dead rabbi will save their sorry asses, and that lie is slicker than deer guts on a door knob!

 

[everneo]

Raithere,

Originally posted by Raithere
Hope you don't mind if I respond.

You're welcome. hope you read my earlier post :
reasoning is again based on premises that are most probably linked to morality.

There are several rational reasons not to do so:

1. Loyalty and honor (not acting against the interests of your friends, keeping your promises, being truthful) are rationally defensible moral values.

how rational they are.?

2. You are lying to yourself if you think that there is no chance you will be found out, particularly if you continue in such a relationship

(Oh, i am not lying to 'myself', infact being watched by - you know whom.
but that is not the only factor deterring me from doing that. FYI my morality is a mix of irrational emotional values, fear of God and some amount of rationality also. forget about my morality. since we are talking about rational morality let us be on track)

ratioanlity in realising getting caught.? what if it is occassional affair in privacy.?

3. Regardless if you get caught or not you are in fact causing emotional distress to his wife and yourself. You are adding to the problems and complications in your marital relationships.

emotional distress / anxiety is there in virgin love too. if they are occassional occurrences there won't be any distress or complications as you tell.

Any questions?

Yes. Your rationals (2) & (3) won't hold strong enough.

as for (1) please explain the rational behind loyalty,honor (not acting against the interests of your friends, keeping your promises, being truthful).

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Flores
You have stated that morals are the basic rules of a society and that they form a base set of rules for interaction between its members. My question then: Are these developed set of morals codes or common denominators for a society represent justice? A moral code must be just as a simple prerequisite for it's success, and what is justice?

Justice is a moral value, it developed along with other moral values not as a prerequisite to them. One will note that historically, our cultural sense of justice has changed over time and is highly dependant upon other moral valuations.

Only very recently have we come to understand justice in light of the equality of all individuals. Even the founding fathers did not clearly see this as 'all men are created equal' did not include either women or slaves.

Can Justice be served on an individual level and a society level at the same time?

Justice can only be served on a societal level as it requires at least two participants. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question; feel free to explain further if I have.

You can't say yes to that, unless you are willing to simplify a human being to a domino game, and that is where your moral code fails. It has holes and gaps that needs religion to complete.

Could you point out where you think the gaps are? I'd be happy to address them. As it stands, I don't really see any areas where religion has better answers.

Generally speaking, I find the religious moral argument to be rather anemic as it relies upon two arguments from authority (the authority of God and the authority of the revelation of God's will) neither of which is well established.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by everneo
reasoning is again based on premises that are most probably linked to morality.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to me that reason is primarily based upon observation. This might be influenced or filtered by moral valuations but such an alteration would be a false perception and not a true observation.

how rational they are?

The quickest (although not necessarily the most exacting) method is simply to recognize the consequences of the alternatives. Humans are dependant upon other humans for species survival. Society is entirely dependant upon human interaction. If humans, as a matter of course are disloyal and dishonorable the basic structure of human society would crumble. Such a situation would be "every man for himself" which would make any societal interaction untenable. In such a consideration I find loyalty and honor to be entirely rational.

ratioanlity in realising getting caught.? what if it is occassional affair in privacy?

You might carry out a daily affair and not get caught or you might cheat once and get caught, who knows. It winds up being a risk/benefit analysis but lots of people are pretty bad at such an analysis.

emotional distress / anxiety is there in virgin love too. if they are occassional occurrences there won't be any distress or complications as you tell.

What I was getting at is that sneaking around and trying to hide an affair, dealing with feelings of guilt, etc. is typically rather emotionally taxing and eventually takes a toll on the individuals.

Yes. Your rationals (2) & (3) won't hold strong enough.

Neither does a direct commandment from God. There always personal variations.

~Raithere

 

[(Q)]

Flores

You wouldn't understand the concept of religion that I'm speaking about…

That’s funny – in dozens of other posts you’ve contributed are clearly defined parameters of your concept of your religion.

My life is the walls of my church and an outlook to others and everyone I deal with is a member of this religion that doesn't belong to me or them.

And, what religion do you now advocate?

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Raithere
I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems to me that reason is primarily based upon observation. This might be influenced or filtered by moral valuations but such an alteration would be a false perception and not a true observation.

Actually the context was morality based on reason as put forth by Cris. Those reasons, sometimes, themselves had their premise linked to morality. it seems that is interlinked / circular.

The quickest (although not necessarily the most exacting) method is simply to recognize the consequences of the alternatives. Humans are dependant upon other humans for species survival. Society is entirely dependant upon human interaction. If humans, as a matter of course are disloyal and dishonorable the basic structure of human society would crumble. Such a situation would be "every man for himself" which would make any societal interaction untenable. In such a consideration I find loyalty and honor to be entirely rational.

Then such morality will be mere results of dynamic cost-benefit analysis. Most of the time loyalty / truthfulness / honor play active role when they are tested. that is in adverse situation. in an adverse situation humans, by nature, if go by reason alone, would choose what is suitable for them, not for society.

You might carry out a daily affair and not get caught or you might cheat once and get caught, who knows. It winds up being a risk/benefit analysis but lots of people are pretty bad at such an analysis.

risk factor cannot be a strong enough reason at some sort of emotioanl, sensual dealings. besides if one is clever enough he can go free and that happens.

What I was getting at is that sneaking around and trying to hide an affair, dealing with feelings of guilt, etc. is typically rather emotionally taxing and eventually takes a toll on the individuals.

'why feelings of guilt' is the basic question. why it forms a reason for rational morality here.? a reason it self demands rational explanation here.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by everneo
Those reasons, sometimes, themselves had their premise linked to morality. it seems that is interlinked / circular.

It's a seriously difficult knot to untie but I'm not really seeing the circular argument. Could you point it out?

Then such morality will be mere results of dynamic cost-benefit analysis. Most of the time loyalty / truthfulness / honor play active role when they are tested. that is in adverse situation. in an adverse situation humans, by nature, if go by reason alone, would choose what is suitable for them, not for society.

For the individual mind it is a cost benefit analysis only moral valuations proscribe behavior that is not necessarily selfish for the individual.

risk factor cannot be a strong enough reason at some sort of emotioanl, sensual dealings. besides if one is clever enough he can go free and that happens.

Certainly it can, simply weigh in the emotional and sensual consequences of getting caught. But yes, one can cheat and get away clean. However, the problem is that such behavior only works if the majority does not play that way.

'why feelings of guilt' is the basic question. why it forms a reason for rational morality here.? a reason it self demands rational explanation here.

Because the emotional reaction is beneficial for the overall population carrying the genes that cause us to have those emotions. It helps to drive cooperative behavior and reduce competitive behavior in the population, which is a very successful survival strategy for the population if not necessarily for the individual.

~Raithere

 

[thefountainhed]

[/quote]Why?[/quote]
See below

No, I said effective morality, ” Without reason no effective morality could have arisen.” Religious morality is based on rules whereas rational morality is based on standards.

Effective for YOU is irrelevant. If you originally stated or state morality only in the effective sense, I would not even bother, for it would be subjective. Moreover, arguments about subjectivity or faith are stupid for it leads nowhere.

Religious morality can never be as effective because it is not based on the needs of mankind but on the alleged desires of fictional supernatural forces.

Religion is based on the needs of man. Man creates religion to explain certain things for him. This is a need of man. Why must you limit your definition of religion so? If I need ti find out what happens if I die or want the rains to come and I design a religion to explain these needs is it not effective or a religion?

And many such rules survive because they appeal to human reasoning. But notice that many components of religious morality quietly evolve into disuse. For example the 10 commandments are often as being a good basis for human morality, however, what is quietly forgotten is that all these commandants are accompanied by the correct punishments, and in all but one of the commandments the punishment is death, usually by stoning I believe. We have reasoned that such behavior endorsed by religion is now barbaric and immoral.

No they survive because they can within their confines. What has punishment to do with morality or its origins in the sense we speaking of? punishment is law. Do not present your hatred of Christianity to me, I do not care. Doesn’t Christianity also preach love? These morals still exists within our society. The punishments may be different but This is not morality.

That would likely be an issue that could be debated. The balance between what is good for society and what is good for the individual. From my perspective the individual should always come first. The choice must be made based on the reasoned objectives of the group or culture.

Then how is the morality of a caste system reasonable if an individual is forced into servitude-- to wash the bodies of the dead and live in seclusion?

If not based on reason then on what?

By lust, greed, religion, etc. Morality can be reasonable, under certain context, but that is irrelevant.

Perhaps you mean ‘do not murder’. I have no problem with killing for self-defense.

Murder, kill who cares? You knew what I meant. The problem is that murder is amoral. This is illogical if I can kill for wealth with relative ease-- as opposed to working my butt off. Same for theft, rape, etc.

You seem to be supporting my case. Each culture will develop their own moral code based on what they deem to be of value for that culture.

You miss the point. Rationality is nonexistent as presented by morality in a caste or religious society.

So what is your problem then? Each group will define a moral code based on what they feel is value to the group, or perhaps the individuals in the group. All of these practices follow the same general rule that I stated before -” Rational morality is a code of values required by man for his survival, well-being and happiness. Such a code must be based on the facts of human value and only reason can determine what is and is not of value to man.”

I present how morality preceded rationality in old Attica and you give me this? The lower peoples in a caste society are not happy. The society still needs that stratification to maintain that society. It is not about rationality. The notion of the individual, of equality, etc these are modern ideas. Morality has existed throughout the history of mankind. Those vary same morals were "effective".

While the reasoning of some groups may well be of dubious accuracy especially when based on invalid or false premises, they are nevertheless always striving to base their code on a rational system. If the standards succeed then the values will survive while others like the 10 commandments punishments will fade into disuse. But Christian morality for example still has some way to go before it catches up with modern values since it still practices intolerance, bigotry, hypocrisy, homophobia, and various other petty discriminations.

They are not striving for a moral code based on a rational system. The moral code of society changes only when certain ideas are adapted by society. Religious morality strives for irrefutability and thus abhors change. And stop picking on the Christians! What of the Hindu, Muslim, Jew?? Intolerance, bigotry, hypocrisy, homophobia, etc if these are values of a society, to keep that society and maintains that society, it is a moral and an 'effective one'. More importantly-- for this discussion, it is not seeped in rationality.

I assume all religions have at their core the belief in a supernatural influence of some type, whether it be gods or spirits, or reincarnation realm.

Your assumption is incorrect.

From Webster: Religion - the service and worship of God or the supernatural.

Unless you can show otherwise there is no factual basis for any such claims

What is that the abridged version or the Chris version? This is websters:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religious:
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
Date: 13th century
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun


A belief and worship in a man is religion.

 

[thefountainhed]

RAITHERE

To some extent, yes they are. Morals are the basic rules of a society, they form a base set of rules for interaction between its members. As such there is a certain amount of reason behind their development. This fact is apparent in their function. What is the function of "Thou shall not murder" for instance? Quite simply, a society cannot function if its members go hacking away at each other at whim. The most common moral codes are usually this self-evident.

I am saying morality can be rational in some instnaces, of course; it coulkd also be based on reason. This would be rational morality which is a subtext of morality. "Thou shall not murder"-- society kills in wars, punsihment.

No, I'm not asking you upon what you think they should be based or whether you care. I'm asking you upon what you think they are based. If they were contrived entirely without reason, please explain the commonalities we find and why moral codes are, for the most part, quite functional instead of simply random like the examples I provided?

I never said morality was without reason! Also logic, in not reasoning. The differences may be subtle, but they are different. Something can be reasonable and illogic. Rationality I equated to logic.

Why, why, why? Ask questions. Morals did not just appear out of nowhere, people invented them. Ask why, and what their reasoning was. Were they just arbitrary or did they have a point?

Rationality/Logic is diferent from reasoning. As I already mentioned, morality has many sources: religion, greed, reason, even reason, etc. What are you trying to contradict?

Since you're fond of definitions:

Because I provided definitions to stop a debate that maybe about semantics, I am fond of definitions?

ethics n 1.a. A set of principles of right conduct. 1.b. A theory or a system of moral values. (AHD)

morality n. 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. (AHD)



Websters:
Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
Date: 14th century
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy

-->Def 2. Would be referred to as ethical codes.


Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 14th century
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
- mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb
synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest ethical principles>. VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character <not a religious person, but virtuous nevertheless>. RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious <wished to be righteous before God and the world>. NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character <had the noblest of reasons for


Read the definitions carefully



~Raithere

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Raithere
It's a seriously difficult knot to untie but I'm not really seeing the circular argument. Could you point it out?


Because the emotional reaction is beneficial for the overall population carrying the genes that cause us to have those emotions. It helps to drive cooperative behavior and reduce competitive behavior in the population, which is a very successful survival strategy for the population if not necessarily for the individual.

Its circular / interlinked because the reason based rational morality, also has its fundamentals in values like loyalty, honor, being truthful etc which are not purely rational fundamentals at all. They are in fact have their basics at not-so-rational emotions besides some rationailty too.

Morality is in a sense to control most of the emotions / urges with help of counter emotions and to some extent, with rational thoughts. Rationality ends at choosing the proper type of emotions where those emotions themselves are strictly, objectively, cannot be said 'reasonable'. I think its dangerous to have a reason that genes causing emotions and therefore they are reliable to form a reason. Anyone who does not bother about morality can also argue, with that reason, that the emotions / urges are gene-caused and it is beneficial to act on the way he does. Co-operative behaviour has its reason in realising the benefit of cooperation OR being brought up in an environment where it prevails. Ultimately when one realises that there is no threat or harm, 'reasonably', to him / others he would indulge in anything for his own enjoyment without any deterring factors like loyalty / honor etc IF he strictly goes with the reasoning alone.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by (Q)

And, what religion do you now advocate?

I advocate that you get your nose out of my business.

 

[(Q)]

Flores

There is a simple solution to that - stop posting your business.

Besides, didn't you bid farewell to everyone and say you weren't coming back?

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by (Q)
Flores

There is a simple solution to that - stop posting your business.

I don't think you fully understand the simplest word in the English Language, NO. I don't want to talk to YOU, not sciforums...I like posting, but I don't like dialoging with you.....just YOU....get it...I doubt it.

And I have a solution for your problems at work as well, Quit, and for your problems at school, just quit, and for your marriage, get a divorce, and as far as your children, disown them. I see your train of thoughts sucks, and that's why I don't like talking to you.

Originally posted by (Q)
Besides, didn't you bid farewell to everyone and say you weren't coming back?

Again, none of your business, but I see you can't help turning your useless unrecognized head toward me. How otherwise can others notice your insignificant stupidity?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by thefountainhed
I never said morality was without reason!

Then we have no quarrel. Sorry, but it seemed that you were agreeing with okinrus's assertion:

Okinrus: "Reason doesn't give us any hints at what is good..."

Cris: "To be able to determine what is right and what is wrong one must exercise an ability to judge and compare conditions that determine particular actions. That methodology is otherwise known as reason. "

Thefountainhed: "Incorrect. Reason exists outside the sphere of morality."

Personally I find that morals, whether literally derived from reasoned argument or 'naturally' derived, are reasonable when their functionality is examined within context. Additionally, I find Cris to be entirely correct in that reason is necessary to make use of moral valuations whether those valuations are rationally derived or not.

Also logic, in not reasoning. The differences may be subtle, but they are different.

Logic is formalized reason. The essence of the two is the same.

Something can be reasonable and illogic.

I disagree.

What are you trying to contradict?

The assertion that reason is intrinsically separate from morality.

~Raithere

 

[(Q)]

Flores

I don't want to talk to YOU, not sciforums...I like posting, but I don't like dialoging with you.....just YOU....get it...I doubt it.

I don’t think YOU get it – this is a public forum and anyone can comment on anything at all. If you don’t like it, that’s too bad.

I see your train of thoughts sucks, and that's why I don't like talking to you.

That makes sense – I don’t live in a religious fantasy so there is really nothing you want to hear aside from religious fantasy.

 

[thefountainhed]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okinrus: "Reason doesn't give us any hints at what is good..."

Cris: "To be able to determine what is right and what is wrong one must exercise an ability to judge and compare conditions that determine particular actions. That methodology is otherwise known as reason. "

Thefountainhed: "Incorrect. Reason exists outside the sphere of morality."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I find that morals, whether literally derived from reasoned argument or 'naturally' derived, are reasonable when their functionality is examined within context. Additionally, I find Cris to be entirely correct in that reason is necessary to make use of moral valuations whether those valuations are rationally derived or not.

Formal reasoning. We are not talking about "reason is necessary to make use of moral valuations"-- but even that is incorrect when applied to religious morality and others. We are talking of the origins of morality.

loogic is formalized reason. The essence of the two is the same.

I said subtle differenciation. You want an example, ask.

I disagree.

It is illogical to think of an ant as God. It is reasonable for me to think an ant is God.

The assertion that reason is intrinsically separate from morality.

Then you are not reading my posts. There is religious morality, there is rational morality, there is organizational morality, 'societal' morality etc..These are all morality. They are not seeped in reason. This is my assertion.