The Forum > Article Comments > Morals or ethics > Comments
Morals or ethics : Comments
By John Turner, published 11/7/2008How often has religion supported war and failed to condemn injustice such as abject poverty?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:21:43 PM
| |
To pelican's question "Can humans construct an ethical or moral code of behaviour without the need for observance of a higher power?" the answer is, yes, we already have.
Peter Singer and Marc Hauser put the same three moral dilemmas to people all around the world, and there was over 90% agreement on the answers, regardless of religious affiliation: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hausersinger1 Steven Pinker argues in the New York Times article I cited above that just as we are hard-wired with an instinct for language and social organisation, we're also equipped with a moral instinct that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with survival and replication. Teaching kids ethics in school? Yeah, sure. But don't forget that they are already equipped with an ethical compass which just needs to be calibrated. Posted by jpw2040, Sunday, 13 July 2008 4:04:49 PM
| |
Bennie,
1. You dangerously conflate Islam and Judeo-Christian religion. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC11Ak04.html 2. Where does Darwin talk about it? Learn what Scripture is, it is the rock from which we are hewn. The Church supports stem cell research, not creation and destruction of human embryos for it. Scientists have recently shown use of somatic stem cells superior in every way to embryonic ones. Embryonic stem cell research is being abandoned by leading labs. 4. Christ teaches to judge by what people do not solely by what they say. Love of and or obedience to God is the stuff that moves history and all peoples. Turn off the TV and read what is happening in the world. 5. 1600 years ago St Augustine was clear ‘if what we read in Scripture contradicts science and reason then our understanding of Scripture is faulty’. If we would learn about the thing we criticise there would be less bigoted theists and atheists. Creationism is as silly as the new atheist ‘all religion is evil’. 7 I’m a trained scientist. You seem confused about doctrine. As a secular humanist you accept on faith some or all of: -the universe caused itself ie it existed before it existed, or it is uncaused! -matter is all there is! -the only valid knowledge is the positivistic scientific kind -free will is an illusion, objective right and wrong is an illusion One doctrine of scientific investigation is: the universe is rational and intelligible all the way down and will go on being so. Scientific proof is shareable knowledge demonstrable by repeated testing. Can’t do science on humans or even the entire universe – singular as they are. What can faith prove? Friendship trusts on a reasonable probability. We don’t wait for legal or scientific assurance of loyalty. Faith is not legal or physical proof – it is the stuff of the most precious things in life. God asks for trust based on reasonable evidence – prepare to hear his voice, go and have a look at the evidence, turn away from fear and selfishness and go and follow him. Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 14 July 2008 2:15:06 AM
| |
Jpw2040, You miss the point: The Bible is explicit, God has written His name on our hearts, we have been made in His image and likeness. Therefore, of course we are able to recognize goodness when we experience it. Of course Morality is objective – universal – binding on everyone at all times and within all cultures. Children know this.
The point is: objective morality and our common sense understanding of it logically entails the existence of God, that is, objective morality is grounded in God. Without God objective values are just free floating in some Platonic sense, with (like the instincts alone) nothing to help decide between them – between greed and charity, lust and justice etc. The point isn’t whether a person can be good without explicit knowledge of God, but that the very existence of values themselves is proof of God’s existence, the being to whom we ultimately have duties toward, and have duties towards others because of. Apart from this logical problem there are practical problems with this project of faithless morality. The Framers of the American Constitution, for example, doubted an entirely secularist order. For example: The inspiration: of why do the right the content: of what you think is right and the sanction: of what happens to you if you do not do the right. are most firmly rooted in faith. If we are really interested in virtuous people think on the above list. Some famous atheists were very ethical people, often profoundly melancholy too. But for our purposes it is a silly and dangerous experiment and doomed to failure. A path has been explicitly laid for us to follow, the path of holiness, it’s a narrow one but why live a lie chasing after these chimera? I’m increasingly staggered at the lengths to which we’ll go to reject God – we do it within history and we do it everyday ourselves just to rub salt into His wounds. [As for Pinker I'll leave you to read Leon Kass' recent slapdown of him and his stupid ideas ] Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:27:00 AM
| |
You make a great point
we are being decieved my internet is 'DOWN' [i cant connect to any site except this one ][for some reason] email isnt working and NO OTHER SITE WILL CONNECT so this must be important info to get out there try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykGZ2tRY4kY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ulOvJl46U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqBWk9YRu7c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czZ9kn70Y7I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8LaVH-pn0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YYUOx6fBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZR4C9gqOY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrDdJotz0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU8PId_6xec http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Lnhs7caCo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-O7WNvKSvY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMcBHGMZzc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCjM-ZOqQF0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTr3ZgKwsiU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXv6sO52xFY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAiTv0IpHWo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FhADUZjx4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLev-ijMLME as to how try this as to why they are being kept from our kids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21D3ATgMHuE http://www.youtube.com/watchv=zp_XHfylwPU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4RZqQujqDQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YnnTzyidNI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGhPgEDcKXI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v76amxA9x1cA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uTy9Uq0K0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSBxEZoNfQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_APNsERXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLqw59XfG04 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLR7-jdF3M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14yDP0GKrUA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muQRIUVd6Aw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kp24ZeHtv4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_MHVw1Zz-I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzUNDaF00U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9MQ88NEO7Q well we could nationalise 'big oil [and big pharma to free up our childrens minds [then join the suppressed research to gether [AND HEAL THE WORLD} but we wont [cause we cant] because we arnt allowed to see the big picture [because of privatised proffit's] we are spending billions subsidising these multinationals with our taxes [every week ] billions spent pills and potions that dont cure us clearly big BUISNESS lobby is paid to stay on top of this info to ridicule it where they can or suppress it where they cant but for the alternative of [free] energy that is based on science that your regular scientists are forbidden to explore that of which you speak is thus unspeakable so [why are they controlled and owned by the same cartel's"] [and are making us sicker ,by treating the symptom [BUT NEVER actually even allowed to cure THE DISEASE] why because they have an active lobby have bought out govt govt must be in on this treason this 83 TRILLION dollar global TAX is a lie we HAVE free ENERGY right here right NOW why arnt we allowed to use it why is my internet disabled? how can this be posted when my internet cant acces my server NO OTHER SITE WORKS only this one? Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 9:55:40 AM
| |
jpw I tend to agree with you.
I particularly liked this: "But don't forget that they are already equipped with an ethical compass which just needs to be calibrated." Humans are born with a natural instinct for survival and developing a code of ethics fits very naturally into this concept. Civilised societies are already evolving away from religion and the future will inevitably become more 'honest' transparent in it's treatment of ethics ie. without the need to defer to a supernatural supreme being or deity. The only impediment to this might be a massive disaster where nations end up in a global war for food and other resources (for example). We can only hope that a natural sense of altruism will ensure a fairer distribution of resources at some time in the future. It may not happen while the most greediest of our system have the most power but it is certainly achievable. Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:52:38 PM
|
I guess if one is looking at evolutionary survival of the human species, it makes good biological sense to provide a set of values and rules to protect the group or collective ie. by making the experience of human life safer and satisfying we protect the viability of our species.
Perhaps in more primitive times, the different religions and tribal traditions were borne of this need. Whether this was unconscious or conscious 'social engineering' I cannot say.
As far as exploitation, the problem will always be with human nature whether this moral code or system be 'supernaturally' based or otherwise. Even in a non-religious setting a few in positions of authority and trust might be tempted to exploit that power in reference to the author's point about 'diddling boys'.
The problem with large unwieldy organisations like the Catholic Church, is they might attract some with a 'immoral' agenda and the perpetuation of that behaviour builds or is reinforced by a culture of cover-up and protectionism.
Most reasonable people don't make the giant leap that all priests or Christians are paedophiles.
It boils down to one question really. Can humans construct an ethical or moral code of behaviour without the need for observance of a higher power?
My belief is yes we can, altruism is not only the domain of the religious. Humans in the main, wish for a harmonius and fair society in which we feel safe. It goes against our biology not to.
This does not mean we are perfect and that there are not aberrations to this universal 'desire' but we are imperfect and have been such with and without Christianity (or Islam, Buddhism, etal).