You must log in or # to comment.
I think the easiest rebuttal to this is that the abstraction level is too high here: “Morality” (as what?) “Religion” (as what?) “Right” (to whom) and “Told” (by whom) are all relying on not having explicit definitions.
I’ve always hated people that said “How can you be moral without religion” It’s concerning if the only thing stopping you from doing bad things is a book from thousands of years ago. I do what I think is right because that’s just who I am. I don’t need some higher power telling me what and what isn’t right.
How does morality determine what is right?
People determine what is right based on their morals. Not everyone agrees on what that means for every situation but there are some widely-accepted ideas for how to make those decisions. By adulthood, it’s generally something you’ll have an intuitive sense for since moral reasoning begins developing early in life. Even if you’re deciding (or being forced) to do immoral things, people tend to be capable of recognizing that what they’re doing is wrong. One problem with religion that is identified in the picture above is that in the case of a conflict between a person’s faith and their morality, religious influence may override their sense of right and wrong which can lead to conflicts, both internal and external. I don’t know if that’s what you’re asking though.
Hopefully that wasn’t too vague of a response, I’m not the most qualified person in the world to explain but there’s no shortage of reading material on the subject. It’s one of those things people have been talking and writing about more or less since the dawn of talking and writing.
How is overriding sense of morality is a problem? Doesn’t your sociocultural background already do that, leading to conflicts?
Based on my experience, people seem to override their religion more than the opposite. I doubt if those mega rich pastors, pedophile priests, extremists, and hate groups actually care about what their religions say. It seems that they just do whatever the fuck they want and do all sort of mental gymnastics to justify their actions and make themselves feel better about it. I’d much prefer if religion actually overrides these people’s morality
You, uh, ever look into the inquisition? Maybe the crusades?
Most wars in human history have been caused by religious distinctions.
Humanity has justified an awful lot of shitty behavior on account of religion
Humanity has justified an awful lot of shitty behavior on account of religion
That’s exactly my point?
If you take an in depth look of those events, there were always inherent political and economical motives. Explicitly saying that you want to assert authority, consolidate power, and acquire more land and wealth by slaughtering bunch of innocent people sounds awful, doesn’t it?
Saying that most wars are caused by religion seems like a stretch, considering conflicts have existed long before human even existed and fights are going to happen anyway. I’m not sure if that’s any worse than invading Iraq for “freedom” or Stalin and Mao killing their people because they were “counter-revolutionaries”
you take an in depth look of those events, there were always inherent political and economical motives. Explicitly saying that you want to assert authority, consolidate power, and acquire more land and wealth by slaughtering bunch of innocent people sounds awful, doesn’t it?
And those leaders have used (organized) religion to control the masses such that said political leaders could do exactly that. More over, consider that until the rise of Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, most relations were distinctly national. Even the Israelites used their particular deity to justify genocide (Invasion of Palestine, Cannan, and the rest of that corner of the world, the biblical narrative places as they entered the promised land). Babylonians and Egyptions and Greeks and Romans all used their patron gods to excuse invasions. As did buddhists and muslim leaders. (even if buddhism might technically be an atheist religion.)
Saying that most wars are caused by religion seems like a stretch, considering conflicts have existed long before human even existed and fights are going to happen anyway. I’m not sure if that’s any worse than invading Iraq for “freedom” or Stalin and Mao killing their people because they were “counter-revolutionaries”
Understand that the first evidence of religion also predates modern humans, with graves found with neanderthals in them.
Stalin and Mao are only VERY recent in human history. As is, obviously, the second iraq war (and american patriotism might be seen as it’s own kind of religion. Terrifying that.). and for most of human history, religion has been the predominate tool for social control. In point of fact, it still is. and for the bulk of that, clergy have tied their authority on to the king. Divine Right of Kings being justification for why they get to bully people around (because god said they could.) even after the idea that the church and state should be separate occured to St Augustine… (incidentally first elaborated on in a book intended to explain that the Visigoth’s sacking rome had nothing to do with roman conversion to christianity…) it was always intended as a defense of the church’s authority from being encroached… and never the other way 'round. it wasn’t until Luther did his thing (and hey, look, more wars,) that we got our modern conception of separated church and state. (my understanding of similarities, the buddha never encouraged anyone to be involved in politics… but then Ashoka happened… see my comment about organized religion always being used for social control.)
in most of human history… organized religions were nationalized into supporting local leadership. They had their own national diety, and the military successes were always a result of their diety being stronger than others, as well as maybe other natural disasters happening (like maybe the bubonic plague hitting palestine when the ark of the covenant was held in Dagon’s temple. you see similar assertions of divine intervention in the wars between greek city states, and with the south american empires.)
that the leaders in those religions were greedy bastards with ulterior motives is not particularly surprising, but not particularly relevant. Throughout most of human history, the religious and secular were inextricably linked, with religion being used to control the commoners and justifying what would be- as you note- an otherwise unjustifiable war. The clergy allowed this so they themselves could maintain their own power, wealth, and status in their society; and the rulers allowed it because the clergy allowed them to be assholes. it was fear of divine retribution that kept people in line.
Having to justify actions to themselves and find ways to feel better can be made easier with a tool like religion that they can lean on. It’s not the only way to get there but at that point, they’ve already recognized that what they’re doing is immoral and they want the money, kid-rape, political / social change, etc. more than they want to stay within the bounds of morality. Murder is wrong but if they’ve been told that, according to the all-knowing being in charge who knows best, allowing a certain type of person to live is worse, they have a ready substitute for the “don’t murder” rule to help them pull the trigger.
Doesn’t have to be the big-ticket items like rape and murder though, it could just be someone who makes others’ lives harder unnecessarily. Maybe it’s a shitty boss whose verbal abuse is just acceptable enough to avoid discipline from above or somebody who tosses their fast food trash out the window on the highway. Scummy behavior for sure but they can balance the scales for themselves by feeling bad and talking about it on Sunday morning. It can replace the urge to be less of a shitbag because at least they’re still playing the role of a good worshiper.
To suggest that morality is to doing what is right is to argue that either there is a universal definition of “right” or that, as you suggest, each person decides for themselves. If it’s the latter, then one couldn’t argue that another person has behaved immorally, and therefore therefore is morality even a thing? If it’s the former then one might argue that we all have the same sense of right and wrong from intrinsic human nature, but then it’s a nature vs nurture question, isn’t it?
My view is that it comes from human nature and our ability to empathize with others. We learn it from personal experience which includes influence from the people around us. I don’t like getting punched in the face, I recognize that other people probably don’t like getting punched in the face so under most circumstances, I won’t punch somebody else in the face. Some part of that was probably my parents telling me as a child that punching people in the face isn’t right. You can say the same about theft, malicious lying (with a carve-out for the harmless stuff that eases social interactions) and playing loud music with thumping bass at 3 AM in an apartment complex. I wouldn’t enjoy being subjected to those things so I don’t do those things to others.
The closest thing I think we have to a universal definition (because there are always going to be outliers) is along those lines. If this does not address your questions, please let me know where I’ve missed the mark but I’d like to hear where you believe it comes from as well.
There is a viewpoint which states morality is just as objective as mathematics or science. The idea behind this paradigm is harm. Every living creature with a nervous system can experience harm such as pain, hunger, fear, thirst, sadness, etc. We humans can check both human-initiated intentional harm, which is under our control, and other types of unintentional harm, e.g., environment damage caused by human industrial development.
Kants categoric imperative. There are rules that apply for anyone taking no-power abuse as referential
I’m sorry, no. There are so many problems with Kant’s categorical imperative. It comes from a tradition of trying to impose simplistic rules onto an inherently complex and messy subject. The Categorical Imperative would just cause misery if it were applied universally, which defeats the whole purpose of morality.
Morality isn’t about rules or dictating what people can’t do. It’s about promoting well-being.
There is always a better way. Till there is no more.
The literal exact same way religion does. It makes it up.
I disagree. Religion is saying what you are doing is right because it comes from your religion.
I think you’re taking an… absolutist view of right-and-wrong, whereas the idea of “right” for religious people is exclusively through the lense of their religion.
Murdering a child to you might be objectively bad, and seeing a religious person do it (or support it) might look like someone doing evil, knowing it’s evil, because they were told to do so. But if their god (or religious leader expressing the will of their god) told them to do it, it is right to do it, and the only right thing to do is what is told (plenty of examples of this playing out in religious texts).
I read a quote by an Indian author, Khushwant Singh, “Morality is a matter of money, that’s why poor people have relegion”.
So rich people have moral…?
Makes things even more scummy when you look at religions with tithing or branches emphasizing things like prosperity gospel. People without the money to spare fork it over anyway in the hope that their faith will be rewarded but it never is. Better off buying lottery tickets since even though odds of winning are low, at least they’re higher than zero.
I would like to join other posters in welcoming migrants from /r/im14andthisisdeep
From a Christian viewpoint, ethics and faith are not separate but interconnected. Ethics isn’t perceived as doing right in spite of religious beliefs, but because of them. The belief system underscores the significance of individual conscience, insight, and spiritual discernment in making ethical choices. Furthermore, the doctrines and illustrations set by Christ in the New Testament are regarded as the supreme ethical principles, intended to steer adherents in leading a life of love, pardon, and equity. Hence, this standpoint contradicts the notion that religion demands obedience without consideration of what is ethically right.
The statement though “morality is doing what is right” seems a bit of a weak statement. What implies right anyway? I go with what benefits humanity as a whole not what “feels right.”
So when Yahweh dictates to commit genocide…
So when Yahweh dictates to commit genocide…
Christianity interprets the entire Scripture through the perspective of Jesus Christ’s doctrines, which underscore affection, empathy, and mercy. The aggressive narratives in the Old Testament are not perceived as direct instructions for today’s followers, but rather elements of a wider tale to be understood in its historical setting and spiritual allegory.
Furthermore, using terms such as “genocide” for these ancient narratives is historically incongruous. The concept, as we comprehend it now—a premeditated, organized extermination of a racial or cultural collective—did not exist in the same manner during biblical times. The exaggerated language in the biblical recounts of battles and triumphs typically served rhetorical or theological aims rather than outlining ethical conduct.
Moreover, Christianity stresses the importance of the ‘Sacred Tradition,’ the existence and wisdom of the Church over centuries. This Tradition involves an ongoing process of interpretation and discernment, aiming for an understanding of the Scriptures filled with divine wisdom, rather than a mere literal interpretation. This method often results in interpretations that affirm the inherent worth of all human life and the significance of love and tranquillity.
In summary, while these passages are present in the Bible, they are not considered as endorsements for violence in Christianity. Instead, they are interpreted within a framework that encourages peace, fairness, and affection.
If you are going to cherry-pick, actually know and understand what you are trying to reference rather than attempt to be some edge lord.
Oh I know the scriptures, read the Bible cover to cover multiple times both for church and college.
Basically all you’re saying is that you want to dance around the subject and use purely the cherry picked sections while ignoring total context, something most Christians do when their entire worldview comes from the selected stories covered on Sundays.
Jesus Christ’s doctrines, which underscore affection, empathy, and mercy.
This completely ignores that Jesus was preaching for people to follow the god of the Old Testament. The one who drowns people, kills children because of their nationality and takes child sacrifice to strengthen an army. Jesus made no point of apologizing and refuting past dictates for Yahweh, but instead reaffirmed things like owning others as property, finding other cultures and women as lesser beings.
Furthermore, using terms such as “genocide” for these ancient narratives is historically incongruous
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
– Num 31:17-18
What better word would you use instead of genocide? This is the dictate of the god you worship, he knows if you’re lying or being untruthful remember.
This Tradition involves an ongoing process of interpretation and discernment, aiming for an understanding of the Scriptures filled with divine wisdom, rather than a mere literal interpretation.
Not sure how you can do this when you flat out ignore the fact it plainly states God demanding evil acts. What was the “metaphor” of killing men, women and children trying to represent? What was the specifics for sex slaves trying to show that couldn’t be said any other way than “take sex slaves as spoils of war?” And why didn’t Jesus come and explain this better, instead telling slaves to obey their masters and that any non believers will die by the sword?
Eh, while not wrong, it would have made more sense to say something like ‘Religion is being threatened to do what is right.’
This assumes the religion is moral. The crusades were probably morally wrong (on both sides. There was a lot of reasons for them. But yeah.) but, on the other hand, the church was definitely telling entire nations to go kill for god
