Reason vs. Morality

[ZenBubba]

It's wrong to hurt people and there is no greater way to hurt someone than to snuff out their life.

Why is it wrong to hurt some one I the next question you're likely to ask. I'm not a philosopher and so I can't articulate the answer except to say it just is. I don't need orders from a supernatural being to know not to be a dick.

Then not murdering people becomes your opinion instead of a directive from something outside of yourself such as a creator.

You could use "enlightened self interest" as a reason not to murder people and at least appear as though you gave it some thought.

 

[Unkotare]

Then not murdering people becomes your opinion instead of a directive from something outside of yourself such as a creator.

Such a directive doesn't come from "outside of yourself."

 

[dilloduck]

If I understand your query, you are asking, if one is not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, how can they be a 'good person'?

If that is your point.....you're not serious, are you?

No no no

The basis for a religious person for not killing is that God has commanded it to be so.

What is the secular reason for laws against killing ?

I'm not saying anyone is bad or wrong. I simply want to know what it is.

One answer so far has been "it avoids chaos".

 

[boedicca]

To me, the proper exercise of Reason leads one to truly moral choices.

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?

I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.


So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?

And, is the world better due to this change?

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

 

[ZenBubba]

Then not murdering people becomes your opinion instead of a directive from something outside of yourself such as a creator.

Such a directive doesn't come from "outside of yourself."

Then you are left with your opinion and that only works if enough people agree with you.

 

[dilloduck]

1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?

I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.


So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?

And, is the world better due to this change?

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

How can you conclude that is is reason and morality side by side without even being able to identify the foundational beliefs of secularism ?

 

[boedicca]

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

I partially agree...one's morality/religious beliefs inform one's choices and priorities for government. Freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. Without such the participation of such consciences, we leave a void which is filled by those who make a religion of the Secular State.

 

[Unkotare]

Then not murdering people becomes your opinion instead of a directive from something outside of yourself such as a creator.

Such a directive doesn't come from "outside of yourself."

Then you are left with your opinion ...

Not at all.

 

[dilloduck]

ok---do a John Lennon with me---Imagine there is no religion for a sec
What would be the purpose for secular morality ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

They tried that at Masada already anyway---

And were thus immortalized thereby proving Gandhi correct.

 

[Derideo_Te]

no---what is the rationale for NOT killing.

Again, rationale is part of Reason and Morals..........They are one in the same to me. If I feel I'd go to hell if I did so would I have a rationale based on religion...........

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.

 

[dilloduck]

They tried that at Masada already anyway---

And were thus immortalized thereby proving Gandhi correct.

yet it didn't stop the abuse

 

[dilloduck]

Again, rationale is part of Reason and Morals..........They are one in the same to me. If I feel I'd go to hell if I did so would I have a rationale based on religion...........

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.

and why is that a good thing ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

anyone else wanna give it a shot ?

I'd like to shoot your red herring, but I'll offer the definition of murder for a start:

"At common law, the killing of one human being by another with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied, that is, with deliberate intent or formed design to kill".
Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1969

And, from the Principles of a just war:

"A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified."

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate."

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury"

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable."

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought."

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered."

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target."

Think in terms of what Hamas and Isreal are engaged in today and what the right wingers in our own nation are doing as they (seem) to seek Civil War in America.

IS this really such a difficult question to understand young herring shooter. Reason vs Morality.

Why do atheists ( people who use reason as a basis for acting ) favor rules that outlaw taking someone else's life ?

Because taking the life of another person is a violation of their rights.

 

[peach174]

You can't have reason and logic without morals, values and ethics.
Without morals and ethics there is no logic.
This is why you see some of the people of this nation without the believe of good and evil behavior.
If there is no good and evil, then you have lawlessness, which is what we are seeing toady in our cities and government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How come atheist are anti murder ?

That always depends on the person. Just because they don't believe in God does't mean they don't have an ethics code.

I understand that. I'm trying to acertain what that code would be based on.

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.

 

[boedicca]

Again, rationale is part of Reason and Morals..........They are one in the same to me. If I feel I'd go to hell if I did so would I have a rationale based on religion...........

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.

Unless, according to Obama, you're a business owner.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?

I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.


So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?

And, is the world better due to this change?

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

The usual from a lying sack of sewage: "Ignoring the factual errors in the OP..."

Go for it, you dunce.

 

[boedicca]

That always depends on the person. Just because they don't believe in God does't mean they don't have an ethics code.

I understand that. I'm trying to acertain what that code would be based on.

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.

Agreed, as long as we are talking about Negative Rights - the rights to be Left Alone.

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right, is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.