Ethics without Religion

[Stryder50]

Which brings to mind the fact that America is more religious than other democracies, but has started so many wars since WW2, while the other democracies have not.

Could it be suggested that christianity is responsible for the American 'culture' of war and killing?

Which wars do you think the USA has started?
Related, how do you define "war"?

 

[Stryder50]

Only one party throws around the term 'theocracy' on a regular basis and thinks you need to get rid of Christmas parties in schools because they feel it is indoctrination. Democrats seem to fear religion.

More correctly, Democrats fear Christianity, and possibly Judism.
They tend to be a bit neutral towards Buddhism and Hindu.
Democrats appear to support Islam, especially Islamic Jihad.
The lessor religions, like Neo-Paganism, tend to genrate mixed feelings~support.

 

[Stryder50]

You cannot have ethics, if you believe in any of the trilogy religions.

Out of scores to hundreds of religions in human history to the present, what do you define as your "the trilogy of religions"?

 

[Stryder50]

Keep your religions to yourselves, and leave them out of government. That's what the godfathers said, separation of church and state, that nobody wants to follow anymore.

Believe what you like. Do not make me or anyone else believe it. Because we shall have words.

I would suggest you apply that sort of focus to Islam, especially fundamentalist Islamic Jihad.

One of Mohammad's last instructions to his followers was that Allah had commanded to see that Islam was spread to all humankind. By force-conquest, if necessary. It helped that Paradise/Heaven concept in Islam is multi-level or multi-layer and the higher levels with the greater rewards can only be attained by mujahedin/Holy Warriors whom engage in (physical) Jihad/Holy War. This is why, during it's first three centuries of existence, Islam spread from a small and localized region of the Arabian Desert to the majority of it's geological dominance today.

Also Islam sees no separation of Church and State, embodies both in the concept of the Caliph and Caliphate, where the highest leader is over both the church/religion and also the state/government. Said government organized under and upholding the rules, laws, and tenets of Islam

 

[Stryder50]

Ethics and morals are an evolutionary trait. Not religious...

Then why do they vary so much in cultures and history perspective?

 

[Stryder50]

Really? You want to suggest one that you believe is more religious than the US or even as. I can't think of any myself.

Try some of the Islam dominate nations whom embed Islamic law and "morals" into their "secular" structure.

 

[Stryder50]

I'm sorry, let's be honest. You're just trying to promote your religion.

You say a few things that make me twinge.

Religion does not believe in ethics. It has never rolled that way, and you're just wishing that it will in the future.

To have a government based on religion, is a death sentence to the citizens, the believers, and the rest of the world.


C'mon seriously! What the freak are you promoting? More of the same shite?!?

You are not being specific enough. For a start, you are blurring "religion" for "Christianity" and even then not clear on which of the varied denominations you want to slander.

Before the conquistadors showed up, the Aztec civilization was doing quite well with it's culture and government, but it was based upon their religion which included sacrifice of living humans to the Sun/Gawd as a major part of it's foundation.

The first Civilization (or "one of" from certain opinions) Sumer (evolved into Akkad and Babylon later ~ i.e. Mesopotamian) was founded on it's theology of many "gods" and "goddesses" whom in many ways seemed to be physical beings whom married, had sex with each other (and humans*), produced offspring, and used humans as pawns in their various disputes and "wars". The civilization and the core of it's cities focused on the building of temples to whatever Gawd/Gawdess was the patron of that city (classic pyramid like structures). Could be claimed that many of the deities of Sumer appear in the polytheistic religions of other cultures/civilizations of that region/era, their names changed to local language, such as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and many others. Even the Vedic of Indus/India has many similarities.

Polytheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Gilgamesh, a legendary hero of the Mesopotamian culture, claimed he was two thirds Divine since his mother was a Goddess. Which seemed rather interesting math until we recently learned of mitochondrial DNA, passed through mother to daughters, and being a third strain of DNA in addition to that of the sperm and egg. Hmmmm ???

Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Point being that these many early religions, most being somewhat different in theology and dogma from the later Judeo-Chrisitian-Islam flavor(strain) also had their own ethics and morals, most similar to what have been found throughout time and around the world in many other cultures/civilizations. Could suggest something common to human nature and their cultures and civilizations, or some other agency that played a common role in human transition and development from wandering wild tribes into cities and their culture. BTW, would seem even in our "caveman" roots, there were something in the form of "religion" and deities.

Which leads to the concept of religion being an ideology that has deity/deities attached. Though when someone like Marx comments "that religion is the opiate of the people", and then seeks to supplant it with and an ideology where the State takes the place of Deity, one has to wonder if (Marxism)Communism is another flavor of Religion.

 

[Red Front]

I have studied a bit of ethics. To this point, my main takeaways are simple. Right and wrong are not relative, and people are born with individual value not dependent on society. I'm not saying they have no societal obligations, I'm simply saying a government couldn't declare people disposable and have them killed, or have a justification for a caste system. Considering that one political party has a clearly anti religious stance, how would they reconcile a society's view of right and wrong? Many casually declare you do not need God for people to have a sense of right and wrong, but without a religion, doesn't that give a government carte blanche to justify any act against its citizens in the name of societal responsibility?
Even on a personal level, ethics without religion seems chaotic. For people who argue that right and wrong are relative, it would just create a system where the powerful could grant themselves any definition of good that suits them. Would an atheist consider that a better model for a society than a society with a religious sense of right and wrong? How could you protect the less powerful from powerful in a purely secular way?

You're simply giving "carte blanche" to religion or the God that people created in their own image. Due to evolutionary biology and the nature of reality, we evolved a sense of right and wrong, an inherent awareness of what patterns of thought and behavior are conducive for life, and which ones aren't. It's a matter of survival and reducing pain and suffering.

What are the behavior patterns that increase our probability of survival and well-being? That's how human beings developed a sense of what is good and evil, right and wrong, and allowed us to cooperate with one another and form social relationships and societies. It's much better to hold life as the highest value rather than a religious deity, that reduces morality to "might-makes-right". Absolute morality ultimately undermines our survival as a species and as individuals. Morality should be reasoned out, discussed, and tested in light of its capacity to contribute to our survival and flourishing, both collectively as a community and personally.

It's generally wrong to lie and deceive others, however under a certain context it's good to lie and deceive. When we go to war with an enemy, we lie and deceive in order to destroy the enemy and save lives. We have "stealth bombers" and "stealth fighters" that deceive the enemy's radar, and we have special forces that are deployed at night, in the ocean, who clandestinely, enter into enemy territory, operating behind enemy lines, with their faces covered in black paint, wearing black combat uniforms or camouflage. A sniper puts on a ghillie suit, in order to deceive the enemy:

He's there present but he wants his enemy not to see him there. Thinking there's nothing there when there is someone there pointing a rifle at their heads. That's a type of lying or deception.

I had a Christian once tell me that if they would've been hiding a Jewish family in their basement in Nazi Germany, during WW2, and if the Nazi Gestapo (secret police), would knock on his door asking him if he had any Jews in his home, he would've been unable to lie. He would've had to admit that he had that Jewish family hiding in his basement. That's the problem with "absolute morality", rather than a contextual, well-reasoned morality based upon human survival and success.

The foundation of morality is human survival and flourishing, human well-being, and nothing else. To make it more than that is a delusion that doesn't amount to anything. People decide what the rules of human society are, not gods, not invisible non-human entities, not theology, or supposed divinely inspired "inerrant" holy books.

 

[Red Front]

You are not being specific enough. For a start, you are blurring "religion" for "Christianity" and even then not clear on which of the varied denominations you want to slander.

Before the conquistadors showed up, the Aztec civilization was doing quite well with it's culture and government, but it was based upon their religion which included sacrifice of living humans to the Sun/Gawd as a major part of it's foundation.

The first Civilization (or "one of" from certain opinions) Sumer (evolved into Akkad and Babylon later ~ i.e. Mesopotamian) was founded on it's theology of many "gods" and "goddesses" whom in many ways seemed to be physical beings whom married, had sex with each other (and humans*), produced offspring, and used humans as pawns in their various disputes and "wars". The civilization and the core of it's cities focused on the building of temples to whatever Gawd/Gawdess was the patron of that city (classic pyramid like structures). Could be claimed that many of the deities of Sumer appear in the polytheistic religions of other cultures/civilizations of that region/era, their names changed to local language, such as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian and many others. Even the Vedic of Indus/India has many similarities.

Polytheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* Gilgamesh, a legendary hero of the Mesopotamian culture, claimed he was two thirds Divine since his mother was a Goddess. Which seemed rather interesting math until we recently learned of mitochondrial DNA, passed through mother to daughters, and being a third strain of DNA in addition to that of the sperm and egg. Hmmmm ???

Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Point being that these many early religions, most being somewhat different in theology and dogma from the later Judeo-Chrisitian-Islam flavor(strain) also had their own ethics and morals, most similar to what have been found throughout time and around the world in many other cultures/civilizations. Could suggest something common to human nature and their cultures and civilizations, or some other agency that played a common role in human transition and development from wandering wild tribes into cities and their culture. BTW, would seem even in our "caveman" roots, there were something in the form of "religion" and deities.

Which leads to the concept of religion being an ideology that has deity/deities attached. Though when someone like Marx comments "that religion is the opiate of the people", and then seeks to supplant it with and an ideology where the State takes the place of Deity, one has to wonder if (Marxism)Communism is another flavor of Religion.

At least the man-made state is here with us and easier to identify and control than the unaccountable, almighty god of religion.

I prefer to worship life itself, or the principles that allow life to survive and flourish, than an irrational, unprovable, if not unfalsifiable almighty deity, that forces humanity to accept his rules without question, based upon his might. Might-makes-right totalitarianism is what Christian morality is based upon. I'll rather worship a human state or government, or the humane, noble, civil principles upon which that system of governance rests upon. I would rather worship a human community or social order, than a tyrannical, all-powerful alien god that tortures human beings in hell for all eternity for not converting to a particular religion. I find the mere thought of worshiping such an entity repulsive and evil. A treasonous act against humanity.

 

[surada]

Religion is the opiate of the masses and the heart of a heartless world.

There's more . Time to use the whole quote .

Karl Marx on Religion – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

 

[Red Front]

Religion is the opiate of the masses and the heart of a heartless world.

There's more . Time to use the whole quote .

Karl Marx on Religion – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

Yes, that quote is often conveniently misinterpreted by Christians. Religion is a response to existential suffering, a way of numbing the pain. It's indeed the opiate of the people.

 

[surada]

Yes, that quote is often conveniently misinterpreted by Christians. Religion is a response to existential suffering, a way of numbing the pain. It's indeed the opiate of the people.

Misinterpreted? They just cut the quote in half.

Karl Marx on Religion – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

 

[Red Front]

Misinterpreted? They just cut the quote in half.

Karl Marx on Religion – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

Yes, that's why they alter the meaning. They rip it out of context.

 

[Votto]

At least the man-made state is here with us and easier to identify and control than the unaccountable, almighty god of religion.

I prefer to worship life itself, or the principles that allow life to survive and flourish, than an irrational, unprovable, if not unfalsifiable almighty deity, that forces humanity to accept his rules without question, based upon his might. Might-makes-right totalitarianism is what Christian morality is based upon. I'll rather worship a human state or government, or the humane, noble, civil principles upon which that system of governance rests upon. I would rather worship a human community or social order, than a tyrannical, all-powerful alien god that tortures human beings in hell for all eternity for not converting to a particular religion. I find the mere thought of worshiping such an entity repulsive and evil. A treasonous act against humanity.

Since the dawn of time, man has struggled to find redemption from the pain and suffering and death in this present world, and through this struggle, various philosophies have arisen to try and find this redemption. There are religious philosophies that place God at the center of our redemption, and there are secular human philosophies that reject God entirely. Two of the most famous and influential secular philosophies were that of Karl Marx and Frederick Nietzsche. The philosophies of both Marx and Nietzsche have created their own gospels of redemption.


Marx is by far the most famous and influential secular philosopher. “Marx envisions a society that needs to be transformed from a stratified society to an egalitarian one.” The method of redemptions not a spiritual transformation. Instead, it is a transformation through materialism. The redemption of Marx can only be realized if the proletariat, or workers, provoke a revolution to restructure society in the name of equality and justice. “Julius Carlebach examines the claim that Marx was a ‘secular nineteenth-century version of an Old Testament prophet’, and concludes that Marx’s passionate devotion to the proletariat is a displacement of the chosen people’ and that Communism is nothing more than a reconstruction of Judaism with Marx’s theories: The equality of men as a matter of right and not of grace. Justice as a matter of principle and not convenience. Reason based on learning as a virtue and a duty, and this-worldliness which demanded the search for perfection on earth.” In short, the masses became their own deity, and in the glow of their redemption, they are enlightened and ennobled by their own divine purpose. In fact, Marx does not object to the ideals of religion as much as to the manipulations in the hands of the privileged classes, much like Christ standing up to the religious leaders and privileged classes of his day, and later crucified for it. But unlike Christ, Marx completely rejects the need for a God to find redemption from these oppressors. Instead, redemption will be achieved with world-wide socialism where everyone’s equal, but primarily equal through material equality which will bring about societal happiness and utopia. Marx’s redemption must be universal and not merely redemption on an individual basis. Either society as a whole is redeemed, or it is damned to an everlasting hell on earth, thus it must also be worldwide. This is unlike Nietzsche who preached that redemption can be found on an individual basis, and is not held hostage by the universal masses.


Like Marx, Nietzsche sought to restore humans to their true divinity. This is because Nietzsche concluded that there are those who are not worthy of his enlightened message, as well as those unable to cognitively even grasp it. “Some human beings, Nietzsche holds, are nobler than others and should serve as models for humanity, and it is these free spirits who are able to overcome themselves and rise above the all-too-human mass”. In other words, redemption comes from a small group of spiritual elites, with Nietzsche, of course, leading the charge.


The philosophies of both Marx and Nietzsche were influential due to the fact that they helped form the basis of world governments. Two of the most famous world governments heavily influenced by them were the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Marx influenced both Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin as they preached redemption through the Soviet revolution of 1917. Conversely, Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime were heavily influenced by Nietzsche. This can be seen as Hitler and his elites did not come to be by revolution, but through the appointment of Hitler and the democratic votes that later elected other Nazis. They then stood out to the populace as the ideal model to be emulated. Luckily, the Nazi regime was later vanquished after World War 2 due to the evils it inflicted on the entire world, however, the Soviet regime remained and seemed to grow with more worldwide Marxist influence.


It is understandable why the Nietzsche influenced Nazi model of government fell out of favor. It was both evil and corrupt and lost a major world war. But why did the Marx counterpart seem to flourish? Was it any less evil and corrupt? No if you consider that Stalin murdered millions more human beings than Hitler, and the fact that Marxism that later spread across the world in places like Red China and Cambodia oppressed and murdered hundreds of millions more. In fact, today those labeled a Nazi are automatically viewed worldwide as a villain, however, those who call themselves Marxists seem to be revered the world over as on the cutting edge of enlightenment and social justice. Black Lives Matter is one such organization that self identifies as Marxists as corporations all around the world sing their praise and pour millions of dollars into their organization. However, do they know that Marx himself was an ardent racist against blacks? In a letter Marx wrote to his friend Friedrich Engels in1866, Marx writes that his black acquaintance Tremaux “proved that the common Negro type is the degenerate form of a much higher one”. So are the Marxists of today willing to ignore the pain and misery their ideology has inflicted upon mankind that is steeped in systemic racism so that they can try and attain his long term goal in mind of universal secular redemption, or are they simply unaware of it? It is hard to say. But the question must be asked, can redemption really be found in an ideology of Marxism that has already taken humanity to the lowest depths of hell?

 

[Red Front]

Since the dawn of time, man has struggled to find redemption from the pain and suffering and death in this present world, and through this struggle, various philosophies have arisen to try and find this redemption. There are religious philosophies that place God at the center of our redemption, and there are secular human philosophies that reject God entirely. Two of the most famous and influential secular philosophies were that of Karl Marx and Frederick Nietzsche. The philosophies of both Marx and Nietzsche have created their own gospels of redemption.


Marx is by far the most famous and influential secular philosopher. “Marx envisions a society that needs to be transformed from a stratified society to an egalitarian one.” The method of redemptions not a spiritual transformation. Instead, it is a transformation through materialism. The redemption of Marx can only be realized if the proletariat, or workers, provoke a revolution to restructure society in the name of equality and justice. “Julius Carlebach examines the claim that Marx was a ‘secular nineteenth-century version of an Old Testament prophet’, and concludes that Marx’s passionate devotion to the proletariat is a displacement of the chosen people’ and that Communism is nothing more than a reconstruction of Judaism with Marx’s theories: The equality of men as a matter of right and not of grace. Justice as a matter of principle and not convenience. Reason based on learning as a virtue and a duty, and this-worldliness which demanded the search for perfection on earth.” In short, the masses became their own deity, and in the glow of their redemption, they are enlightened and ennobled by their own divine purpose. In fact, Marx does not object to the ideals of religion as much as to the manipulations in the hands of the privileged classes, much like Christ standing up to the religious leaders and privileged classes of his day, and later crucified for it. But unlike Christ, Marx completely rejects the need for a God to find redemption from these oppressors. Instead, redemption will be achieved with world-wide socialism where everyone’s equal, but primarily equal through material equality which will bring about societal happiness and utopia. Marx’s redemption must be universal and not merely redemption on an individual basis. Either society as a whole is redeemed, or it is damned to an everlasting hell on earth, thus it must also be worldwide. This is unlike Nietzsche who preached that redemption can be found on an individual basis, and is not held hostage by the universal masses.


Like Marx, Nietzsche sought to restore humans to their true divinity. This is because Nietzsche concluded that there are those who are not worthy of his enlightened message, as well as those unable to cognitively even grasp it. “Some human beings, Nietzsche holds, are nobler than others and should serve as models for humanity, and it is these free spirits who are able to overcome themselves and rise above the all-too-human mass”. In other words, redemption comes from a small group of spiritual elites, with Nietzsche, of course, leading the charge.


The philosophies of both Marx and Nietzsche were influential due to the fact that they helped form the basis of world governments. Two of the most famous world governments heavily influenced by them were the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Marx influenced both Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin as they preached redemption through the Soviet revolution of 1917. Conversely, Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime were heavily influenced by Nietzsche. This can be seen as Hitler and his elites did not come to be by revolution, but through the appointment of Hitler and the democratic votes that later elected other Nazis. They then stood out to the populace as the ideal model to be emulated. Luckily, the Nazi regime was later vanquished after World War 2 due to the evils it inflicted on the entire world, however, the Soviet regime remained and seemed to grow with more worldwide Marxist influence.


It is understandable why the Nietzsche influenced Nazi model of government fell out of favor. It was both evil and corrupt and lost a major world war. But why did the Marx counterpart seem to flourish? Was it any less evil and corrupt? No if you consider that Stalin murdered millions more human beings than Hitler, and the fact that Marxism that later spread across the world in places like Red China and Cambodia oppressed and murdered hundreds of millions more. In fact, today those labeled a Nazi are automatically viewed worldwide as a villain, however, those who call themselves Marxists seem to be revered the world over as on the cutting edge of enlightenment and social justice. Black Lives Matter is one such organization that self identifies as Marxists as corporations all around the world sing their praise and pour millions of dollars into their organization. However, do they know that Marx himself was an ardent racist against blacks? In a letter Marx wrote to his friend Friedrich Engels in1866, Marx writes that his black acquaintance Tremaux “proved that the common Negro type is the degenerate form of a much higher one”. So are the Marxists of today willing to ignore the pain and misery their ideology has inflicted upon mankind that is steeped in systemic racism so that they can try and attain his long term goal in mind of universal secular redemption, or are they simply unaware of it? It is hard to say. But the question must be asked, can redemption really be found in an ideology of Marxism that has already taken humanity to the lowest depths of hell?

Since the dawn of time, man has struggled to find redemption from the pain and suffering and death in this present world, and through this struggle, various philosophies have arisen to try and find this redemption.

Philosophy means,"love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. However, the development of tools or "science and technology" is what has had the greatest practical impact on humanity in its collective effort to control the environment (increasing order, making existence more predictable, and allowing us to accurately plan for the future) and decrease human suffering. Redemption is subjective and means different things to different people. Not everyone wants to live forever or become a ghost.


There are religious philosophies that place God at the center of our redemption...

Yes, there are philosophies that assert that there is an almighty GOD being or personal God. Others believe in an impersonal God or in a pantheon of deities (many gods). These religious systems assert that "salvation" or immortality can only come from a transcendental, all-powerful being or God. Whether such a being actually exists is anyone's guess, but this is what religious folks believe.


....and there are secular human philosophies that reject God entirely.


There are non-theistic philosophies that reject the notion of there being an almighty God. Yes indeed.


...Two of the most famous and influential secular philosophies were that of Karl Marx and Frederick Nietzsche. The philosophies of both Marx and Nietzsche have created their own gospels of redemption.


Marxist philosophy, along with the ideas of Nietzsche were non-theistic. Correct. They like other philosophies propose solutions to the problems that plague humanity, and if you want to call that a "gospel" or "redemption", that's fine. Marx offers a brilliant dialectical-based critique of capitalism and how the human production of the goods we consume, has throughout history, till the present, defined the nature of most of our social interactions and relationships. He clarifies the nature of power in society and its hierarchal structure, including the institutions that represent and protect it. He also shows us how to "redeem" or free ourselves from the exploitation that capitalism perpetuates.

The materialist-dialectic (i.e. dialectical materialism), is a framework that allows us to identify the inner workings of the economy and the historical, and social factors that drive it, giving us the ability to transform it into a system of production that serves humanity rather than enslave it.

Marx is by far the most famous and influential secular philosopher. “Marx envisions a society that needs to be transformed from a stratified society to an egalitarian one.” The method of redemptions not a spiritual transformation.

The term "spiritual" is a bit subjective. I feel "spiritual" or a transcendental quality or sense of transcendence, a type of catharsis when I'm in a communist gathering or lecture hall in the presence of hundreds of my comrades (brothers and sisters). Although we're not there worshiping an almighty being in heaven, we are together here on Earth, in human solidarity and love. I experience their care and brotherly affection for me as their comrade in our common revolutionary struggle against evil (capitalist imperialism, hunger, homelessness, social injustice, the exploitation of human labor, sexism, racism, and homophobia. etc).

Instead, it is a transformation through materialism.

Materialism in the sense of recognizing the importance of material conditions in determining our state of being. Marxism is a practical, down-to-Earth philosophy, that emphasizes human flourishing and self-determination in a supportive, humane community.

The redemption of Marx can only be realized if the proletariat, or workers, provoke a revolution to restructure society in the name of equality and justice.

The word "provoke" in this context is being used with a negative connotation, suggesting that the working class (i.e. proletariat) is unnecessarily and unwarrantedly resorting to and initiating violence. Actually, it's the capitalists with their exploitation of human labor, destruction of the environment, and indifference to human suffering for the sake of monetary gain, that is truly provocative and worthy of being dealt with by whatever effective means are available to the proletariat. We're now on the brink of fighting WW3 due to the capitalist pursuit of profits (war profiteering), so that's what's truly provoking violence, not working-class people (94% of the population in America), demanding capitalists stop exploiting and dehumanizing them.


“Julius Carlebach examines the claim that Marx was a ‘secular nineteenth-century version of an Old Testament prophet’, and concludes that Marx’s passionate devotion to the proletariat is a displacement of the chosen people’

That's what Christianity is according to the NT (i.e. New Testament). A "displacement" of the Jewish people through faith in their new god-man savior Jesus.

and that Communism is nothing more than a reconstruction of Judaism with Marx’s theories: The equality of men as a matter of right and not of grace.

Christians feel they have the right to create this god-being that imputes unmerited human worth and rights through faith in Jesus, their god-man savior. At the end of the day, it's still human beings conjuring up a bunch of religious dogma and doctrines (gobbledygook), pretending their rights descend from a transcendental, heavenly source.

In Marxism, we recognize that human beings create laws and ethical standards, not gods or an imaginary super-being in the sky. We are all equal before the law of the land and in our humanity, but not necessarily in our capacities. Marx said:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen)

The words "From each according to his ability" means that everyone in society contributes to the best of their abilities. This isn't a demand for uniform output from everyone, but a recognition of our different capabilities and strengths. Some people might be more skilled in physical tasks, others in intellectual work, some might have the talent for creative pursuits, while others for organizational tasks. Everyone's contribution is valued and necessary.

The words "To each according to his needs" asserts that all members of society should have their basic needs fulfilled, regardless of what they can or cannot contribute. In this sense, it's a commitment to social security and equalityas far as people's human worth. Regardless of a person's health, age, or ability to work, their needs, food, shelter, healthcare, and education, are met because they are valued members of society, not because they have rented their lives (labor power) to a capitalist for several hours a day.

This principle contrasts sharply with capitalism, where one's ability to meet their needs is intrinsically tied to their capacity to sell their labor (their life) in the marketplace. Marxism rejects the idea of a societal hierarchy based on wealth and instead suggests a society based on true democracy, mutual aid, cooperation, human solidarity, and communal responsibility.

Justice as a matter of principle and not convenience. Reason based on learning as a virtue and a duty, and this-worldliness which demanded the search for perfection on earth.”

We're not trying to be perfect or create a perfect world, but we can create a better world than what we have now. As far as us being "worldly", what's the alternative? An imaginary heavenliness? We're not in heaven, we're on Earth. Religious folks place too much emphasis on an afterlife that they don't have now and may never have, as opposed to focusing on the worldly life that they actually have. All we know is that we have this life and we should make the most of it. Our responsibilities and obligations are here, not in the clouds, in another dimension.

In short, the masses became their own deity, and in the glow of their redemption, they are enlightened and ennobled by their own divine purpose.

I haven't met one Marxist yet that seen himself or herself as a "deity". We're just humans trying to make the best of this world we find ourselves in. However, if I have to choose between worshiping the man-made tyrant god of the Christians who tortures people in hell for all eternity for not converting to a particular religion or a set of noble principles and the community that commits itself to them, I would rather deify those life-affirming principles and that human (or humane) community that lives-out those beautiful, life-empowering principles. I see that as more transcendent and powerful, worthy of my awe and worship, than worshiping an almighty god tyrant, who's never tasted what it means to truly be human.

In fact, Marx does not object to the ideals of religion as much as to the manipulations in the hands of the privileged classes, much like Christ standing up to the religious leaders and privileged classes of his day, and later crucified for it. But unlike Christ, Marx completely rejects the need for a God to find redemption from these oppressors.

We don't need an immortal, all-powerful, privileged heavenly despot, living in luxury in heaven, to be good, ethical human beings. We can transform this world into a much better place than it is now, without your tyrannical, immortal god being, who keeps people alive in hell for all eternity. How can anyone in their right mind believe in such nonsense? How is that moral? How can you respect and grant your allegiance to such an inhumane, Alien entity, with so little regard for humanity? Are you that afraid of this man-made entity you've created through your faith? A tyrannical mental thought-form, kept alive by billions of Christian worshipers. This evil god entity of yours feeds itself off of your fear and faith. You keep it alive.

Instead, redemption will be achieved with world-wide socialism where everyone’s equal, but primarily equal through material equality which will bring about societal happiness and utopia.

Equal access doesn't imply everyone has the same toothbrush or lives in the same type of home or drives the same type of vehicle, or is wearing the same clothing or a uniform. This is nothing but a cheap, ignorant polemic often used against socialists by right-wingers. The equality that we espouse is one where everyone is equal before the law and is valued as a cherished human member of society. It follows that each person has a human right, within our community, to receive food, housing, healthcare, education, and meaningful, productive work in the field they choose or at least in what they're willing and able to do. Socialist society provides people with the foundation upon which to build their lives and actualize their fullest potential.

Marx’s redemption must be universal and not merely redemption on an individual basis. Either society as a whole is redeemed, or it is damned to an everlasting hell on earth, thus it must also be worldwide. This is unlike Nietzsche who preached that redemption can be found on an individual basis, and is not held hostage by the universal masses.

So-called "redemption", as this right-wing apologist likes to say, is both personal and social. Human beings are social animals, we draw much of our identity and self-worth from our interactions and relationship with other human beings. Redemption or salvation for a socialist is to be free of exploitation and live in a society that values them for who they are as human beings. A civil, humane, supportive society that meets people's needs, and allows its members to actualize their fullest potential. In Marxist socialism, the workers collectively own the means-of-production (factories and machinery) collectively and democratically. Production is a non-profit-based, social endeavor rather than a for-profit, privately owned one. We don't produce the goods and services that we use to sell them in a market but to consume and use them.

Like Marx, Nietzsche sought to restore humans to their true divinity.

Marx, nor Nietzsche thought in terms of "divinity", this is just a bunch of Christian gobbledygook.


This is because Nietzsche concluded that there are those who are not worthy of his enlightened message, as well as those unable to cognitively even grasp it. “Some human beings, Nietzsche holds, are nobler than others and should serve as models for humanity, and it is these free spirits who are able to overcome themselves and rise above the all-too-human mass”. In other words, redemption comes from a small group of spiritual elites, with Nietzsche, of course, leading the charge.

More nonsense and not applicable to Marx or even Nietzsche for that matter.

The philosophies of both Marx and Nietzsche were influential due to the fact that they helped form the basis of world governments. Two of the most famous world governments heavily influenced by them were the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Marx influenced both Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin as they preached redemption through the Soviet revolution of 1917. Conversely, Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime were heavily influenced by Nietzsche. This can be seen as Hitler and his elites did not come to be by revolution, but through the appointment of Hitler and the democratic votes that later elected other Nazis. They then stood out to the populace as the ideal model to be emulated. Luckily, the Nazi regime was later vanquished after World War 2 due to the evils it inflicted on the entire world, however, the Soviet regime remained and seemed to grow with more worldwide Marxist influence.

It is understandable why the Nietzsche influenced Nazi model of government fell out of favor. It was both evil and corrupt and lost a major world war.

The Nazis were defeated by the Soviet Union. Seven out of ten Germans were fighting in Russia against the red army (80% of the German army). The USSR lost 27 million of its citizens, whereas the US lost 460,000. Less than half a million. Unlike the US, Soviet Russia was invaded by four million Nazis.

After WW2, the Soviet Union had to pick itself up by its bootstraps without any assistance from anyone, unlike Western Europe and Japan, which got plenty of help from the United States. Despite all of the challenges and obstacles, the USSR rebuilt itself and by the mid-1950s, was a superpower, rivaling the United States, a country that had an over 100-year headstart of industrial development ahead of the USSR.

But why did the Marx counterpart seem to flourish? Was it any less evil and corrupt? No if you consider that Stalin murdered millions more human beings than Hitler, and the fact that Marxism that later spread across the world in places like Red China and Cambodia oppressed and murdered hundreds of millions more.

A cheap cold war polemic against the Soviets, Stalin, and Marxism in general. Those numbers are inflated, if not completely fabricated:

​

Here are former CIA officers admitting that they fabricated atrocities against Marxists in several countries, like Vietnam and Angola:

​

If you want to resort to death toll arguments, capitalism is much worse, when you factor in all of the deaths from capitalist colonialism, imperialism, and the indifference of the market in meeting human needs when it's not commercially viable or profitable. As a Christian and defender of capitalism, you have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point your crooked, feculent finger at communists.

In fact, today those labeled a Nazi are automatically viewed worldwide as a villain, however, those who call themselves Marxists seem to be revered the world over as on the cutting edge of enlightenment and social justice.

Communists are vilified due to how effective Western cold war propaganda was in the West. Marxism, socialism, and communism is all essentially the same thing. Socialism is the process that leads to communism. Communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. It's the highest form of socialism, and it can only exist when they're very advanced technology. The Soviet Union was socialist, not communist. The USSR/Soviet Union was called:

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS/USSR

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere?​

Black Lives Matter is one such organization that self identifies as Marxists as corporations all around the world sing their praise and pour millions of dollars into their organization. However, do they know that Marx himself was an ardent racist against blacks? In a letter Marx wrote to his friend Friedrich Engels in1866, Marx writes that his black acquaintance Tremaux “proved that the common Negro type is the degenerate form of a much higher one”. So are the Marxists of today willing to ignore the pain and misery their ideology has inflicted upon mankind that is steeped in systemic racism so that they can try and attain his long term goal in mind of universal secular redemption, or are they simply unaware of it? It is hard to say. But the question must be asked, can redemption really be found in an ideology of Marxism that has already taken humanity to the lowest depths of hell?


What takes us to the "lowest depths of hell" is Christianity and its beloved capitalism. The fact that Marx and many other European thinkers held racist and sexist beliefs doesn't imply everything they did and taught was wrong. Many of the signers of the US Constitution owned slaves and had the same racist views, if not worse than Marx. Abraham Lincoln made racist remarks as well, are you going to throw him in the trash bin too? Your post is just silly and full of errors.

What's going to redeem or save humanity is humanity. We need to save ourselves.

 

[PK1]

I have studied a bit of ethics. To this point, my main takeaways are simple. Right and wrong are not relative, and people are born with individual value not dependent on society. I'm not saying they have no societal obligations, I'm simply saying a government couldn't declare people disposable and have them killed, or have a justification for a caste system. Considering that one political party has a clearly anti religious stance, how would they reconcile a society's view of right and wrong? Many casually declare you do not need God for people to have a sense of right and wrong, but without a religion, doesn't that give a government carte blanche to justify any act against its citizens in the name of societal responsibility?
Even on a personal level, ethics without religion seems chaotic. For people who argue that right and wrong are relative, it would just create a system where the powerful could grant themselves any definition of good that suits them. Would an atheist consider that a better model for a society than a society with a religious sense of right and wrong? How could you protect the less powerful from powerful in a purely secular way?

“Even on a personal level, ethics without religion seems chaotic.”

On a personal level, “ethics” does not apply. Ethics only comes into play when other beings are involved, and the only important ethical conduct is a “golden rule” variation where FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY & “DO NOT HURT OTHERS” are integral components.
Religion, as a cultural artifact, is not needed, unless it helps translate the “golden rule” for the less educated or intelligent.
.

 

[Blues Man]

“Even on a personal level, ethics without religion seems chaotic.”

On a personal level, “ethics” does not apply. Ethics only comes into play when other beings are involved, and the only important ethical conduct is a “golden rule” variation where FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY & “DO NOT HURT OTHERS” are integral components.
Religion, as a cultural artifact, is not needed, unless it helps translate the “golden rule” for the less educated or intelligent.
.

So you never heard of a personal ethic?

You decide how you treat other people that is your ethic

Religion is not needed for any reasonable person to define his own behavior

 

[task0778]

I think ethics was born from religion, at least to some degree. In general, without religion would we be as ethical today? Some might say the decline of religion in recent decades correlates to a decline in ethical behavior. Some might say there is a causation there.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think ethics was born from religion, at least to some degree. In general, without religion would we be as ethical today? Some might say the decline of religion in recent decades correlates to a decline in ethical behavior. Some might say there is a causation there.

And some might say hurricanes are caused by abortions, or Haiti's natural disasters were caused by a deal with the devil. Some will always say crazy shit.

 

[DGS49]

The problem with "ethics" is that humans tend to be evil. We can rationalize almost anything; ask any lawyer.

So It is best to fall back on some basics. Start with the non-religious Commandments, to wit:

• Honor your father and mother,
• You shall not kill,
• You shall not commit adultery,
• You shall not steal,
• You shall not bear false witness,
• You shall not covet.

Supplementing these we have,

• "Love" your neighbor.

Properly understood and expanding them to cover specific actions on the margins, that's all you need.

Further, it is best (necessarily) to live as though:

1. There is a "god,"
2. There is an afterlife,
3. A virtuous life is rewarded in the afterlife, and an evil life is punished (or extinguished) in the afterlife.