Religion and Ethics?

[Meriweather]

Just like I don't believe "spirits" talk to people

Very well.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One simple question? Where did human morality come from..........there is no morality in nature. Morality could not have "evolved" naturally. Where did man first receive the idea that murder is wrong.....stealing is wrong........bearing false witness is wrong......etc.,

Where does the concept of right and or wrong come from? Why are some things right and other things wrong?

Where morality does not come from? Some argue there are no absolute rights and wrongs. They declare it depends upon the situation..........or, the ends justify the means, if the outcome is good.........that must be right.....if the outcome is bad that must be wrong.

Without Law there is no right nor wrong.......as law defines what is right and what is wrong. A law does not establish right and wrong......it defines what any particular society defines as being moral or immoral.

Example: Simply because something is legal does not make it moral. Moral people make moral laws, immoral people make immoral laws.

But what source calibrates that which is right or wrong? Why is law reflected in all civilized societies around the globe with "common" examples of what is defined right and wrong? Why do all civilized societies declare murder to be wrong.....stealing to be wrong. What is the source of this common knowledge that transcends every corner of the civilized globe?

Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[Clyde 154]

Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Animal "ethics"? LMAO What? Can't read or comprehend the English Language? Did you even bother reading the link provided?

It begins by stating the obvious........there are no facts in evidence to prove that animals act because of ETHICS. There are 3 "theories" (i.e., a theory is an IDEA based upon unprovable speculations, conjectures and assumptions, because it does not have the required truthful knowledge to be a FACT of SCIECNE/PHYSICS). The 3 theories (ideas...i.e., PHILOSOPHIES)

1. Indirect theories 2. direct but unequal theories 3. moral equality theories.

Again.......a theory is not a fact. Theory: A "concept" that has not yet been "verified" Concept: a "general idea".

Verified: Proven to be true

Animals act on innate "instinct".......not morality. Example: Animals kill to sustain life and the bloodline. This explains why a predatory animal such as an African Lion will attack, kill and consume another animal such as an antelope on one instant and simply lie on a flat rock and allow others to pass without incident in the next instant. They react by instinct such as driven by hunger or in order to survive. Its all about preserving and passing on the bloodline. They react because of 1. hunger 2. the desire to reproduce (Sexual Drive) 3. to protect their offspring in preservation of the bloodline. No animal "feels" nor "makes judgements" based upon reasoned and rationalized thinking of any ethical consideration.

Just where are these Animal Law Enforcement Agencies located in our society? Who enforces animal morality? Did the Chimp that ate a ladies face have any moral qualms about such an act? Did it have an animal trial before it was put down? Maybe it was just having a bad emotional day?

 

[Feeding Crows]

Disagree. Most people see religion as a belief in a supernatural power or entity, i.e., God. Hitler, Stalin, and the rest of those people and gov'ts had nothing to do with God, and nothing at all to do with religion. One could say their followers supported them with a religious fervor, but not God and therefore not religion.

You don't need god for a religion. You just need followers willing to die for a cause that's ridiculous. Just because the rulers told them to do so. Communism is a religion. It can't happen because Socialists won't allow it to. But they make the people believe it is true enough to sacrifice their lives.

 

[Feeding Crows]

One simple question? Where did human morality come from..........there is no morality in nature. Morality could not have "evolved" naturally. Where did man first receive the idea that murder is wrong.....stealing is wrong........bearing false witness is wrong......etc.,

Where does the concept of right and or wrong come from? Why are some things right and other things wrong?

Where morality does not come from? Some argue there are no absolute rights and wrongs. They declare it depends upon the situation..........or, the ends justify the means, if the outcome is good.........that must be right.....if the outcome is bad that must be wrong.

Without Law there is no right nor wrong.......as law defines what is right and what is wrong. A law does not establish right and wrong......it defines what any particular society defines as being moral or immoral.

Example: Simply because something is legal does not make it moral. Moral people make moral laws, immoral people make immoral laws.

But what source calibrates that which is right or wrong? Why is law reflected in all civilized societies around the globe with "common" examples of what is defined right and wrong? Why do all civilized societies declare murder to be wrong.....stealing to be wrong. What is the source of this common knowledge that transcends every corner of the civilized globe?

Morality did evolve. Do you think "God" just gave it to you so you can kill everyone else? Any species that evolved should not want to kill their own species in a genocidal way, they will not survive. Only humans do genocide. And they do it over religion... And we may possibly all die because of it. That's morality.

Humans are the only ones that go against morality and ethics, due to religion.

 

[Feeding Crows]

 

[Grumblenuts]

Animal "ethics"? LMAO What? Can't read or comprehend the English Language? Did you even bother reading the link provided?

It begins by stating the obvious........there are no facts in evidence to prove that animals act because of ETHICS.

It's great that you can laugh, because you sure can't read very well. Go ahead, quote where it says "there are no facts in evidence to prove that animals act because of ETHICS." -- I'll wait.. but I'm not about to hold my breath.

FYI, it's a thorough, historical review of the subject beginning with older, less reasoned theories and working up to our present, more considered understanding of the subject, hindsight being 20-20 as they say. So, if you're actually interested, try reading the whole thing instead of just stopping at Kant.. Or just keep laughing like the semiconscious animal you are. Makes no never mind to me

 

[Meriweather]

You don't need god for a religion. You just need followers willing to die for a cause that's ridiculous.

Religion and faith have nothing to do with being roped in by a government who sees (or for a long time) saw a ready-made group they could manipulate. Now, instead of yelling, "Do it for God" they are yelling, "Do it for Democracy." Hopefully, the masses are now wary enough of government they will not be manipulated by any slogan.

God is about caring for each of us individually, not about running a nation(s).

 

[Meriweather]

And they do it over religion...

Old, out-of-date, song and dance. We have been over it for a long time. Religion is a way of life for the individual.

 

[DGS49]

One of the psychological bases of religion is that it allows one to feel, in at least some ways, superior to others. You are "in the know," or you don't do that common sinful thing that other people do, and so on. Parenthetically, this is a huge difference between Christians who are Roman Catholic and Christians who identify as "born again." No Catholic will ever say that s/he is "saved," because that fact is not determined until the very end of our lives.

While it is not necessary to have a "god" to be religious - many jews are atheist or agnostic - most religious people consider that outsiders must at least believe in God, believe in an afterlife, and believe that one way or another, a virtuous life is rewarded after death and an evil life is punished. Without those minimal beliefs you are lost.

Another characteristic of a "religion" is that it forces one to believe things that cannot be proven by physical evidence; they can only be inferred from life experience or learned from divine revelation. If a "believer" is confronted by FACTS that contradict his beliefs, he will try to explain the contrary facts in a way that does not destroy those beliefs. "The work of the devil," and things like that. (This is why, in my opinion, "Evolution" is a form of religion for most non-scientists).

In my opinion, the MAIN function of religion is to explain the "difficult" aspects of life. Things like when an innocent young person is killed suddenly, either by a human action or natural phenomenon. Or when an evil person lives his entire life without being called to account; or conversely when a virtuous person is struck with all sorts of "bad luck" that is totally undeserved. These things are made tolerable by the belief in an afterlife, where, as said above, a virtuous life is rewarded and an evil life is punished. Without these beliefs, life might become intolerable.

 

[Grumblenuts]

How Secularism Became a Dirty Word: Susan Jacoby - Freedom From Religion Foundation

This speech was delivered at the 27th annual national convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis., on Oct. 30, 2004. Author Su...

ffrf.org

 

[Lisa558]

One of the psychological bases of religion is that it allows one to feel, in at least some ways, superior to others. You are "in the know," or you don't do that common sinful thing that other people do, and so on. Parenthetically, this is a huge difference between Christians who are Roman Catholic and Christians who identify as "born again." No Catholic will ever say that s/he is "saved," because that fact is not determined until the very end of our lives.

While it is not necessary to have a "god" to be religious - many jews are atheist or agnostic - most religious people consider that outsiders must at least believe in God, believe in an afterlife, and believe that one way or another, a virtuous life is rewarded after death and an evil life is punished. Without those minimal beliefs you are lost.

Another characteristic of a "religion" is that it forces one to believe things that cannot be proven by physical evidence; they can only be inferred from life experience or learned from divine revelation. If a "believer" is confronted by FACTS that contradict his beliefs, he will try to explain the contrary facts in a way that does not destroy those beliefs. "The work of the devil," and things like that. (This is why, in my opinion, "Evolution" is a form of religion for most non-scientists).

In my opinion, the MAIN function of religion is to explain the "difficult" aspects of life. Things like when an innocent young person is killed suddenly, either by a human action or natural phenomenon. Or when an evil person lives his entire life without being called to account; or conversely when a virtuous person is struck with all sorts of "bad luck" that is totally undeserved. These things are made tolerable by the belief in an afterlife, where, as said above, a virtuous life is rewarded and an evil life is punished. Without these beliefs, life might become intolerable.

Religion teaches some excellent values. Although in Judaism there are 613 commandments (or mitzvot), most them can be summed up as Hillel said: that which is distasteful to you, do not do unto others.

Imagine how much better our world would be if people followed that teaching!

 

[Meriweather]

In my opinion, the MAIN function of religion is to explain the "difficult" aspects of life.

Great post, although I do disagree with the first sentence in your final paragraph. In my opinion, the main function of religion is to guide one through this life--i.e. set one on the path of eternal life as the way of living this life. When one is on the path of eternal life, no need for concern about the next life.

 

[Lisa558]

Great post, although I do disagree with the first sentence in your final paragraph. In my opinion, the main function of religion is to guide one through this life--i.e. set one on the path of eternal life as the way of living this life. When one is on the path of eternal life, no need for concern about the next life.

I don’t think belief in a “next life” is even necessary, although I realize it’s a central concept of many religions. I grew up in a fairly observant Jewish home - kosher home, Shabbat services, etc., - whose parents did not believe in an afterlife. When I, as a child, asked why we should follow the laws and perform mitzvot if there’s no reward, my dad told me “because G-d wants you to do these things.” That was good enough reason for me.

Disclosure: there is a difference of opinion among Jews re an afterlife. In any event, you don’t have to believe in that to be a practicing Jew.

 

[Meriweather]

I, as a child, asked why we should follow the laws and perform mitzvot if there’s no reward, my dad told me “because G-d wants you to do these things.”

A follow-up question to this could be, "Why does God want us to do these things?" and I believe the answer to that is because God wants to guide us into doing what is best for us and those close to us. He wants a good life for us.

 

[Lisa558]

A follow-up question to this could be, "Why does God want us to do these things?" and I believe the answer to that is because God wants to guide us into doing what is best for us and those close to us. He wants a good life for us.

Excellent!

 

[task0778]

You don't need god for a religion

Yes you do. The definition of religion is a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods. If God ain't involved then it ain't a religion per se.

 

[alexa]

Yes you do. The definition of religion is a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods. If God ain't involved then it ain't a religion per se.

So Buddhism would not be a religion then

 

[Blues Man]

So Buddhism would not be a religion then

It isn't a religion it is a philosophy of living.

 

[alexa]

It isn't a religion it is a philosophy of living.

That is your belief. It has very good ethics but I would say a lot more than a philosophy of living. It most certainly is first and foremost about practice. Is it a religion or not is an interesting one with Buddhism as it has tended to be seen as a religion. There is a book 'Buddhism without beliefs' by Steven Batchelor. where he goes into this and how it is not helpful. But i'd say defo more than just philosophy. Demands a change in consciousness and contact with heart.