Why do religions try and take credit for morals?

Post Reply New Topic

Because they feel that their god IS God. One of the theories of metaethics in existence is divine command theory, the notion that the only possible source of proper morality is from a god. In fact, J.L. Mackie describes the existence of God as the only tenable way to accept the notion of morality, he then says that he thinks that the existence of a God is untenable though.

No, you really haven't. I have explicitly stated that your account of morality is insufficient for sustaining the actual term "morality" and only sufficient for sustaining things such as "moral intuition" or "moral behavior". The issue is that morality has a transcendent referent, which I have pointed out with notions of evil and immoral. Your position comes closest to emotivism, which I would argue is completely wrong and an untenable explanation, if not an unfortunate mistake in ethical theory in general. In short, if you think you have answered my criticism, I would question your reading comprehension abilities, as you would have to counter my argument on the nature of morals rather than just holding to an ahistoric perversion of the notion.

You truly cannot see where I have argued my point!? Really? You honestly believe I was arguing close to emotivism?
Wow, I almost feel sorry for you there...

You do know that explaning that morals "just are" without giving cause or reason is... well, immoral? By which notion of morality and immorality, whichever notion or person you choose to quote, decide. Sadly, you have severely misinterpreted my point.
Yet you accuse me of having difficulty in reading comprehension? Please, re-read and don't assume points of third party... I hate when people do that.

Well, I cannot see what isn't there. Umm... let's see, you are arguing that morality is a biological artifact, that is found in the head, that seems very similar to the proposition that morality is purely a psychological/emotive reaction.

Trust me, you don't know the cynicism I regard you with.

Umm.... I never said that morals "just are". If you want to make a point, then make a f*****g straight-forward one instead of playing games and using arrogant posturing. I have read deeper thinkers than you on this subject, so if I cannot comprehend you, I tend to think the fault is on your end.

Restate your position, break it into syllogisms. I am not wasting my time on some schlock. Frankly, I think you probably have some piss-poor point that you have deified and then blame me for not recognizing it. Are you arguing that morality does not exist, therefore there is nothing to take credit for? If so, then that argument is BS, for if morality is made-up, then religion, arguably the embodiment of made-up things should be given the credit for giving these notions a body to walk in.

Wow, you're lack of understanding continues to astound me! You are stating morals ""just are", by religion.
If you will pay attention - try, it's not that hard - I never said morals were strictly biological - but one level of them are!!
Read; Broad Sources! Buddy, you dare say you've read "deeper thinkers" on this than I...? Tell me, were they, perchance, religious... or did they have the patience to actually take YOU seriously in this matter, given your demonstrable... perspective... on the matter.

If you are TRYING, note TRYING, to argue that morality holds origins both physical, psychological and cultural, PAY ATTENTION and maybe you, laughable creature you appear to me, should, I would hope, see THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU!

Cheee-rist!! I've argued with your kind before... damnable psuedo-intellectualls. Yes, yes, I know. You've read another persons work on the subject, or hold the assosciative values that you believe are your own, and argue the point as though they are... yes... yes... Oh, I will really take you seriously for that...

Listen, buckwheat, I'm all for fairness, argument and conversation, but you dare to accuse me of not thinking through on this point, no thanks to your limited observations on my arguments, but how do you even know a damn thing about that? I should think if you hold even the slightest spark of intellectual capacity, you should interpret english. You are a native speaker, yes? You say I don't know the cynicis, with which you regard me? Ha! Go back to the juniour leagues, kid.
Crossed the line, buddy. If you want to argue, not argue - interpret that - fine. But lashing out, because you are a Believer, and then accusing me of such? Fool.

Rack off.

You're angry, but do you even know why?

@ OP More to the point is why do we allow religion to be the bastion of morality. Why do we say that we should respect peoples religious beliefs when they so obviously do not deserve respect. Why do we allow religions to place themselves outside our laws. Why is it that a greater amount of Americans would vote for a person who was gay, black and jewish than someone that was atheist. Why do we as secular societies give such credence to religion when most of us are agnostic.

Obviously there are enough people of faith to make a difference in state affairs.

Morality exists with.. or without.. religion.. regardless.

Jews.. Buddhists.. Christians.. Atheists.. all believe in the same moral guide-line.. whether they are religious or not.

That we should treat each other the way we would wish to be treated ourselves.

At least the evidence suggests this..

The concept has been repeatively taught by many of the greatest sages..


And what harm is there.. believing in this.. ?

----

"Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things."

Lao Tzu

-

"When one cultivates to the utmost the principles of his nature, and exercises them on the principle of reciprocity, he is not far from the path.

What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others."

Confucius

-

"There is especially the rule of doing to others what you would have others do to you, and refraining from doing to others what you would not have others do to you.

You will say to yourselves: "Here I am, fond of life and not wanting to die, fond of pleasure and averse to pain. If anyone should attempt to take my life from me, or inflict pain upon me, that would not be pleasing to me, and if I were to rob someone else of life, or inflict pain, that likewise would not be pleasing to him."

The Buddha

-

"You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself."

Moses - Leviticus 19:18

-

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy."

http://www.atheists.org/

-

"All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean." -

Jesus - Matthew 7:12

-

"For the entire Law stands fulfilled in one saying, namely: "You must love your neighbour as yourself." If, though, you keep on biting and devouring one another, look out that you do not get annihilated by one another."

Paul - Galatians 5:14

-

"The men who discovered for us the Law of Love were greater scientists than any of our modern scientists. Only our explorations have not gone far enough and so it is not possible for every one to see all its working.

Such, at any rate, is the hallucination, if it is one, under which I am laboring. The more I work at this law the more I feel the delight in life, the delight in the scheme of this universe. It gives me a peace and a meaning of the mysteries of nature that I have no power to describe."

Gandhi

-

No, I am stating that divine command has the ability to establish morality. That is a different position, and to say that I am saying that "morals "just are"" is a strawman. To say that morals are rooted in transcendent properties, that demand a God or religious essence to the world, however, makes sense and is what can be argued.

Use syllogisms. Not only that, but if you look at my argument, I said that no level of morality can be biological.


No, actually one of the major thinkers I already mentioned for stating that morals required religion was J.L. Mackie a very well noted atheist who wrote a philosophical books criticizing all of the philosophical proofs of God as flawed. Nietzsche also argued that morality was a false thing rooted in religion, same as Stirner.


AND THAT IS THE POSITION I HAVE BEEN ARGUING AGAINST, YOU TWIT!! ! If you dared to read me, your statements that morality has origins in physical, psychological, and cultural things really does not establish morality according to what I argue. Frankly, I *WAS* recognizing your position relatively well. Thus, your point *fails*, and you simply were ignoring mine!!


Yeah, most people have argued with pseudo-intellectuals. In fact, I might put you in that category, not saying I am not an intellectual at this point, but I do not think that I have practiced any great intellectual dishonesty. I mentioned that I have read somebody's work on this, in order to establish a basis in authority so as my point could not be dismissed. If a major metaethicist agrees with something I am saying, it is more likely that my point deserves greater examination.


Yes, I do DARE to accuse you of not thinking through this point. Your argument failed to establish what people typically refer to when thinking of the notion of morality/ right and wrong. Because of that, you have failed to establish a theory of morality so much as moral intuitions and behavior. I do interpret English, why don't you? The junior leagues??? HA HA!! !! I crossed the line? Ooh, wow! You don't even know what I am, do you? I never argued for a faith in any god or religion, so this is not a matter of my faith at all, foolish turd. This is entirely because you failed to recognize my criticism and simply dismissed it without truly addressing it.

No, f**k off, you idiotic twit.

Because we are afraid of people judging the personal beliefs of others no matter what they may be.

awesomelyglorius, that response was pathetic. Explain yourself more clearly next time, hm?
Why assume Believer means religion...? Tool.
Moreso for using the invalid "strawman" argument, and referencing philosophers. Where's your independent theory, Believer?

Your kind is a joke... go do some work on the subject yourself, instead of quotes and references? Pathetic.

No, the response was valid.

If you want clarification, just tell me what to clarify.

Because that is the typical use of the term "believer". Right...


The strawman argument is hardly invalid. The issue is that you are dismissing a legitimate position without critical examination? Not only that, but, why do I want an independent theory if there are some pre-existing ones that work? I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel.

And you aren't? I have not seen very much valid or deep from you at all, certainly nothing that shows that you would even know the quotes or the references or even be willing to attempt to understand either. Right, and you think you aren't pathetic? Wow.

Any knowledgeable individual knows that morals are derived from the environment you grow up in. Period.

Sorry if I'm jumping in where I'm not invited...

But...

In my opinion; mass population control through fear is the primary motive.

The secondary one is to instill a sense of 'superiority' in said followers of the "right" God.

Not period - those are "greater morals". They are the majority of four interdependant moral forms. Why does everyone want a blanket response...?

Okay, think architecture. Building styles vary culturally and regionally, but serve the same purpose?
The purpose of morals is social cohesion; there is a standard of morals species-wide called lesser morals. Within these basic parameters, greater morals form, as there is need, and are taught to future generations as a part of culture. Much like we have four fingered and a thumb hands, so tools are made by that hand, for that hand.
So, yes, morals come from environment - but are an integral part of the human makeup, also!
There is no one, definitive origin. Morals are a set; the origins share that.

You have an amazing capacity to convert your beliefs into obvious truths, z0rp. In fact, many people (read: evolutionary psychologists) think that morals are, to a significant degree (though not entirely), due to evolution. Which is environment in a manner of speaking, I suppose, although your intention is ambiguous.

Furthermore, we may have a natural history of morals without a theory of morality, just as political philosophy addresses the essence of the state without necessarily regarding the history of the state.