The (usually) atheists and humanists who claim to be able to be moral even though they are not religious nevertheless have many of the same moral values as the religious. — baker

There is quite a bit of overlap, but atheists - by definition - deny the objectivity of revelation. This is because they do not believe in god who, if nonexistent, cannot use his omnipotence to make moral commands obligatory.

So while some basic ideas are common to both humanists and the religious, the humanist has a human-centered, rational justification for their moral beliefs, whereas the religious depend upon arbitrary commands taken on faith. But the atheist, by the very nature of being atheist, is a skeptic with respect to the moral facts given by god.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion? — baker

Whence would be the desire to survive as a species, the desire to rationally justify what almost everyone knows - we must sacrifice for the greater good. The values that promote the greater good are codified in ethics, especially humanistic ethics. You might argue that religion serves the greater good, or did, but such a tendency is far more explicit in humanism - there are no ritual sacrifices, no flagellation for sins committed long ago, no vicarious redemption. Humanism has cast off all distractions, thus secular ethics.

Their idea of moral behavior (as far as verbal and bodily actions go) is still the one as first modeled by religion. — baker

Maybe. When we first managed to articulate our thoughts many things, if not all things were caused by different kinds of gods. It provides some kind of explanation as to why the world act as it does, including ourselves as well. But calling this religion might be misleading, in that today religion is associated with specific traditions and are rarely used to justify events and behavior in the world.

We could also call it "folk science" or "protoscience" or "folk psychology".

I'm not asking whether morality can be justified without religion. I'm asking whence the idea that it can or should be. Is this just rebellion against religion, or is there something else to it? — baker

Sure. Nowadays it's less rare for many people not to refer to a God or Gods for moral acts. So the idea can be articulated somewhat, without religion. Not that religion makes morality more clear. Just because a deity announces a moral principle to be valid does not make the moral principle itself more important or better stated.

Not that religion makes morality more clear. Just because a deity announces a moral principle to be valid does not make the moral principle itself more important or better stated. — Manuel

Most people seem to believe that moral acts are obligatory merely because god commands them. If god exists and does command us to do things, then those things can indeed be morally obligatory just because he says so. The idea also applies to principles, as they guide actions. Thus, morality is clear as day in the context of religion - even if the principles imparted by god are arbitrary.

those things can indeed be morally obligatory just because he says so. — ToothyMaw

Sure. But it doesn't offer an explanation which isn't tautological as to why you should or should not do X, Y or Z.

Thus, morality is clear as day in the context of religion - even if the principles imparted by god are arbitrary. — ToothyMaw

It may appear clear. Doesn't mean it is. Even in a secular standpoint I does not seem to me that morality is clear in the sense of giving justifications for not doing or doing certain things.

Or that's how it looks like to me.

Sure. But it doesn't offer an explanation which isn't tautological as to why you should or should not do X, Y or Z. — Manuel

It isn't a tautology: moral acts are obligatory because god commands them. However, that doesn't mean that god commands moral acts because they are moral. Those are two very different things.

It may appear clear. Doesn't mean it is. — Manuel

How is it not crystal clear? God commands it, it is right, we should do it. I'm not saying divine command theory is infallible, but it makes ethics very simple.

It isn't a tautology: moral acts are obligatory because god commands them. However, that doesn't mean that god commands moral acts because they are moral. Those are two very different things. — ToothyMaw

But I'm assuming that people believe that the commands given by God are moral, because they are given by God. He wouldn't command me to do something immoral, surely? I suppose it depends on which religion you have in mind.

There's the whole Abraham and Isaac story I know.

How is it not crystal clear? God commands it, it is right, we should do it. I'm not saying divine command theory is infallible, but it makes ethics very simple. — ToothyMaw

Let me put aside religion just for this paragraph, then I'll put it back in. Why do something moral? Do we know? I often can't give better reasons than asking "how would you feel if X is done to you"? Where X stands in for theft, murder of a friend, etc. But this doesn't seem to me to go deep into morality.

Now back to religion. God commands something, it is right because He says it is right. Why is it right? Because God says so. This seems to me to be equivalent of asking but what's wrong with I did and a police officer replying "it's the law". Yeah, fine. I don't think that's a good reason, much less an argument.

I don't think in either case morality is clear, as in us understanding why we should be moral.

But I may be interpreting this completely wrong, so, I'm not chained to this interpretation.

But I'm assuming that people believe that the commands given by God are moral, because they are given by God. He wouldn't command me to do something immoral, surely? I suppose it depends on which religion you have in mind. — Manuel

Whatever moral commands god gives us would be morally obligatory since "moral" in this context boils down to "what one ought to do". Thus, any command given by god could be moral, regardless of anyone's personal notion of right and wrong. He could command us to murder, and it would be right, merely because he commands us to do it, which equates to telling us what we ought to do.

And yes, most people who believe in this believe that god only commands us to do moral things. But whatever god commands us to do - morally - is obligatory, even if people think it is immoral.

Now back to religion. God commands something, it is right because He says it is right. Why is it right? Because God says so. This seems to me to be equivalent of asking but what's wrong with I did and a police officer replying "it's the law". Yeah, fine. I don't think that's a good reason, much less an argument. — Manuel

But it is a good argument in the case of god: he has omnipotence, omniscience, etc., whereas a policeman is enforcing laws that are themselves decided by legislators who are elected by fallible people. In the context of divine command theory god is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong; the laws cannot possibly be unjust if god says they are not.

There's the idea that one doesn't need religion in order to be moral.
That might well be so, as far as verbal and bodily actions go. But is it possible to conceive of morality without reference to religion to begin with? — baker

Yes, of course; the Euthyphro suggests why, in effect, it is necessary to do so. More prosaically, though, if people had lived in larger-than-a-few-families social groupings generations before adopting-forming a 'cultus' (and, of course, archealogy, shows that they did), then they must've had some customs (i.e. mores) of reciprocal violence avoidance, mutual aid, free-rider disincentives (like blame-stigma or expulsion), etc to which they adhered sufficiently for the social group to survive. Like, for example, the church preceded the canonic bible, the Hebrew tribes wandering for decades preceded them adopting Mosaic Law; morality, which is presupposed by eusocial group survival, precedes building institutions / monuments like religions or states (Aristotle?) The reverse order just doesn't make sense empirically or logically.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Worth the read.

Religion doesn't provide a stable moral foundation. As we have all probably noticed, even within a single religious tradition, morality is whatever a believer or a particular church community subjectively determines it to be though interpretation of scripture or 'knowing' what God's will is.

Christians, for instance, vary greatly when it comes to morality. Some believe women should just be housewives; some think they can be scientists and lawyers and the family breadwinner. Some hate gay people, others are gay friendly. Some believe in capital punishment, others fight against it. Some think being wealthy is God's reward, others think Jesus demands personal poverty and sacrifice. Some are against abortion, others are pro-choice. Christian morality includes the KKK (a Christian organisation) and the ministry of Martin Luther King.

In other words, Christian morality is derived from the personal preferences of a believer or what their pastor tells them it is. Religion does not provide any moral certainty, only the illusion of certainty.

Neither religion nor secular ethics were ever conceived in a social vacuum. There is always a social context--human desires, human needs. human weaknesses, material conditions--that are addressed in either religious or secular morality. No moral system was ever without a predecessor.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion? — baker

Some people would prefer to ignore religion. That's fine. What is not fine is thinking that ONCE RELIGION BECAME A MAJOR SOCIAL FORCE, moral and ethical systems could be built that had no relationship to religion. Only if they were cooked up in an impossible social vacuum could they not reference preceding or coexisting moral system. Religions are in the same boat. The oldest religions being practiced now had to reference their social context (of several thousand years ago).

Take stealing. Over our long history, material goods have generally been hard for the average person to come by. A bit of homemade fabric required a personal investment. One's small store of food was hard won. Discouraging people from stealing hard-to-replace goods has likely always been a good idea, secularly and religiously. We 21st century-its may have the odd first-world problem of being buried in material goods. You might be doing me a big favor by stealing some of my excess, unwanted material possessions [just don't count on me looking favorably upon your stealing my stuff, even if all this crap is suffocating me].

Wtf déja vù, @baker – why another thread on more or less the same topic?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519871

I don't accept the premise of the OP. It is not only possible to conceive of morality without reference to religion, the religious who claim to be moral are merely pretending to the same moral values as the atheists and humanists. Religion is merely copying some of the moral principles from atheists and humanists and citing a god as their source. The religious idea of moral behavior was first modeled by man, before and without religion. The religious idea of moral behavior is superficial and external to man. Religion is just copying morality, and is not the source of it.

This is par for the course with religion, claiming all that which is good, is them. Any who who act immorally are just deemed to be wayward or lost, or misinterpreting religion or, worse yet, not them. It's not unlike a certain political bent claiming a flag, or a high ground, or a patriotism that is either not theirs, or not theirs alone. They deem the lack of any push-back as proof of the righteousness of their beliefs. The religious, in their failure to persuade, will adopt, and adapt, and forfeit in order to appeal, until the religion itself has morphed into something other than what it was. It will then claim eternity.

The idea that something is moral or immoral was indigenous to man, like the idea of feeding and taking care of the young, the sick, the wounded, the elderly. Religion, even if it arose simultaneously, was not the source of, nor did it precede morality. It just claimed it, as it always does.

Very well put sir.
If you only do the right thing because you are commanded to you are not acting morally, you are acting the slave.

:up:

My view on morality is well defined in the article I wrote about it and which article appeared in two versions on this site (and appeared nowhere else): a short version second, and a long version, first.

Basically it said that like all other characteristics of humans and living creatures, the characteristics developed randomly due to mutations, and those characteristics that favoured survival more than other characteristics became dominant in the species.

I further stipulated that there are two branches of morals: one which you can't go against, and which are pervasive among all mankind, and which cause grief and great sorrow and GUILT if not fulfilled. These moral actions include saving offspring from certain death, etc.

The morals that you can't go against are a product of mutations.

The other branch of morals are also a product of mutations, but they are not hard-wired, so to speak; they can be programmed, successfully or unsuccessfully by the social environment. No features of this other morality is innate, other than the feature that they can be learned, or internalized. These include such morals that society dictates for people: thou shalt not steal, fornicate, covet thy neighbour's ass, cheat, lie, murder, maim, hurt, and do everything to others what you want them to do to you.

Any one or more or none of these can be internalized by humans.

Religion plays a role in morals inasmuch as it is an announcer for social values. Religion is a vehicle very much in service for the ruling class, and the ruling class decided on some rules that are conducive for social stability and prosperity, because these served their purpose. So the ruling class, who was above the priests' class in power, directed the formation of religious morals to comply with the service to the ruling class's wishes and needs.

Hence the morals that can be used also by secular and atheistic societies, because both the hard-wired and soft-wired morals are internal to humans, with or without the vehicle of religion to deliver morals to humans.

Yes, of course; the Euthyphro suggests why, in effect, it is necessary to do so. More prosaically, though, if people had lived in larger-than-a-few-families social groupings generations before adopting-forming a 'cultus' (and, of course, archealogy, shows that they did), then they must've had some customs (i.e. mores) of reciprocal violence avoidance, mutual aid, free-rider disincentives (like blame-stigma or expulsion), etc to which they adhered sufficiently for the social group to survive. Like, for example, the church preceded the canonic bible, the Hebrew tribes wandering for decades preceded them adopting Mosaic Law; morality, which is presupposed by eusocial group survival, precedes building institutions / monuments like relgions or states (Aristotle?) The reverse order just doesn't make sense empirically or logically. — 180 Proof

Contrast phylogenesis vs. ontogenesis.

Phylogenetically, what you're saying above would be applicable for the human species as a whole.
But as far as the development of a particular individual is concerned?? It would apply only if morality is somehow genetically encoded and generally not a product of socialization/acculturation.

(And we can't conduct a study on this.)

If you only do the right thing because you are commanded to you are not acting morally, you are acting the slave. — DingoJones

Indeed, and some religions criticize believers who obey religious laws out of fear of punishment or out of hope for a reward.

Why is it right? Because God says so. — Manuel

Within the context of a particular monotheistic religion, this is a valid, non-fallacious argument from authority.

How is it not crystal clear? God commands it, it is right, we should do it. I'm not saying divine command theory is infallible, but it makes ethics very simple. — ToothyMaw

So what's your solution to "Which God is the right one?" ?

Neither religion nor secular ethics were ever conceived in a social vacuum. There is always a social context--human desires, human needs. human weaknesses, material conditions--that are addressed in either religious or secular morality. No moral system was ever without a predecessor. — Bitter Crank

Sure. Do you have some idea on how to both acknowledge the relativity and derivativity of moral systems, and yet have a sense of certainty about moral issues?


Most people seem to have only one or the other. They acknowledge the relativity and derivativity of moral systems, and feel a measure of uncertainty in deciding about issues of morality. Or they have that certainty in moral issues, but also take a simplistic view of the origin of morality (usually, they are monotheists or proponents of scientism).

The idea that something is moral or immoral was indigenous to man — James Riley

How do you know that?

- - -

Religion doesn't provide a stable moral foundation. As we have all probably noticed, even within a single religious tradition, morality is whatever a believer or a particular church community subjectively determines it to be though interpretation of scripture or 'knowing' what God's will is.
/.../ — Tom Storm

Still, the monotheists characteristically operate with the idea that they are "right about God", that they know the truth about God and everything related to God.

The religious, generally, have the conviction, the confidence that they are right about morality, and they refer to some external source for this. They quite distinctly have no sense that their beliefs about morality are somehow to any extent of their own making.

This is enviable, don't you think?

Proponents of scientism are modeling their certainties by this as well, when they claim that morality is a product of evolution etc.

Well, like e.g. language, morals emerges in and belongs to the commons, that is, it's a social, public, process-artifact and not merely a matter of individual, or private, expression. Your "phylogenesis vs ontogenesis" is a non sequitur.

Well, like language, morals emerges in and belongs to the commons, that is, it's a social, public, process-artifact and not merely a matter of individual, or private, expression.

Your "phylogenic vs ontogenic" comparison is a non sequitur. — 180 Proof

Explain why.

The two are two different perspectives on the matter.

The religious group can ostracize a particular member, but it cannot ostracize itself. Thus the individual person is subject to experiences and forces that the species as a whole is not.

Still, the monotheists characteristically operate with the idea that they are "right about God", that they know the truth about God and everything related to God.

The religious, generally, have the conviction, the confidence that they are right about morality, and they refer to some external source for this. They quite distinctly have no sense that their beliefs about morality are somehow to any extent of their own making.

This is enviable, don't you think? — baker

Not inevitable. I have watched several Christian apologists struggle to deal with this point. But what they think isn't important. My point is to provide a response on religious morality.

Explain why. — baker

Why explain again? Reread my previous post.

This is enviable, don't you think?
— baker

Not inevitable. — Tom Storm

I said enviable. You don't envy them their certainty?

Sorry Baker. Not sure I have ever envied anyone's certainty. I am generally suspicious of certainty but it depends on the context.

:up:

*sigh*

John, our ontogenesis example, is born and raised into a religious society. His notions of morality are entirely defined by said religion. He believes that religion was handed down to humans by God. He has no notion of the evolutionary development of religion as you sketched out earlier.

Are you saying that John can neverthless have a notion of morality that is completely independent of the religion of the society he lives in?