Ethics without Religion

[Blues Man]

I wish I had a great reference to argue that good and evil are not relative. Maybe someone can give links to arguments to that effect. I know I believed that at one time, and many people do, but I can't remember the arguments that changed my mind. I know that during my time in school, it was accepted that ethics were not relative. Assuming that they are relative, how do the secular purists structure their society. How do they keep it from becoming the territory of the corrupt and powerful?

Ultimately what benefits the society survives and becomes predominant in the behaviors of that society.

There has always has been and will always be corruption at all levels of any society.

My belief about good and evil are more from a philosophical stance.

Taoism for instance teaches that if you name the good you necessarily create the bad.

If you look at that with the knowledge that all human behavior exists on a continuum that all human behavior is natural to some degree.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that serial killing is a natural part of the continuum of all human behavior.

So what really is labeled good and evil simply is a reflection of all human behavior that occurs across the continuum

 

[BULLDOG]

Thank you for giving a detailed view, and I agree with you about predation. Even if you are not a religious person, you have to admit it was useful, and gave us some national spirit and tradition. If it was zombification, it was at least merciful in that one person wasn't supposed to be better than another and people were supposed to treat each other well. I fear the post religious model won't be so merciful. What traditions do you see being the future values of the people?

No reason to believe future values will bemuch different than current values. Perhaps less arbetrary and more logically supportable than the religious model.

 

[rupol2000]

Thank you for giving a detailed view, and I agree with you about predation. Even if you are not a religious person, you have to admit it was useful, and gave us some national spirit and tradition. If it was zombification, it was at least merciful in that one person wasn't supposed to be better than another and people were supposed to treat each other well. I fear the post religious model won't be so merciful. What traditions do you see being the future values of the people?

The Judeo-Christian model is neither ethical nor fair. Enemies and villains should be killed, and God cannot demand slavery and cannot tempt by paradise and intimidate by hell, no equality is needed either. This is ethics for slave mentality

 

[rupol2000]

What traditions do you see being the future values of the people?

Return to the traditional patriarchal model.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

You are funny!

There are NO ETHICS in religion!

 

[Curried Goats]

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?

The problem with your argument is that all people, religious groups and governments do declare all sorts of people as disposable and come up with all sorts of justifications for why this is good.

 

[Votto]

Which party has an anti-religion stance? Traditional Christians don't follow Scofield, Hal Lindsey or the rapture and Armageddon/Megiddo.

The belief that men were created in the image of God is key to how you treat all other issues.

For you see, if man is not made in the image of God, then man is nothing more than a glorified ape/animal.

Problem is, how do we treat animals? Mankind puts them in zoos for our amusement, uses them as beasts of burden, or kills and eats them. This is how Marxist dictators rule over society, with no remorse or fear of ever being held to account by a higher power.

Of course, the other extreme is PETA, just treat animals as well, if not better, than human beings

Case in point

Secular Marxists, you can't live with them and you can't kill them.

 

[BULLDOG]

The belief that men were created in the image of God is key to how you treat all other issues.

For you see, if man is not made in the image of God, then man is nothing more than a glorified ape/animal.

Problem is, how do we treat animals? Mankind puts them in zoos for our amusement, uses them as beasts of burden, or kills and eats them. This is how Marxist dictators rule over society, with no remorse or fear of ever being held to account by a higher power.

Of course, the other extreme is PETA, just treat animals as well, if not better, than human beings

Case in point

View attachment 669355


Secular Marxists, you can't live with them and you can't kill them.

What a twisted little mind you have. You think it takes belief in a god to recognize the difference between a human and a zoo animal. That's just goofy.

 

[Feeding Crows]

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?

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?!?

 

[Feeding Crows]

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.

 

[toobfreak]

Ethics without Religion​

Without religion, all you can have is ethics. Ethics are determined BY man relative TO man. With religion, you have the possibility of MORALITY, a much broader quality, because the fount of morality comes from God's mouth to man's ear via the spiritual heart.

 

[Feeding Crows]

No, you're just making that up to support your religion.

I'm not stupid.

 

[Feeding Crows]

Maybe your believers are, but not me.

Promote your fake religion. Just don't make them hurt anyone anymore.

 

[buttercup]

You seem to think that people aren't capable of having their own morality. That morals must be dictated to them by either religion or some government agency. You are wrong, and a little silly.

I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy would agree wholeheartedly with you. They had their own morals and acted on them. By the logic of moral relativism, their morals are just as valid as yours.

 

[Feeding Crows]

Yeah, and Christians killed, murdered, tortured, and raped their way to supremacy.

That's why you believe what you believe. Your ancestors were forced to believe. And here you are today!

Blowing out the bullshit outta your arse.... And saying we have to vote this way or that way based on what you believe.

 

[surada]

I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy would agree wholeheartedly with you. They had their own morals and acted on them. By the logic of moral relativism, their morals are just as valid as yours.

Definition of MORALITY

a moral discourse, statement, or lesson; a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson; a doctrine or system of moral conduct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[buttercup]

Definition of MORALITY

a moral discourse, statement, or lesson; a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson; a doctrine or system of moral conduct… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

You really didn't get the point, did you?

 

[Feeding Crows]

You don't understand, princess buttercup.

 

[buttercup]

You don't understand, princess buttercup.

What do I not understand? It appears that you completely misunderstood my post or else you wouldn't have thumbed it down.

 

[Feeding Crows]

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