If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't know how many of this thread's participants were around in the Spring when there was a pretty heavy-duty argument about this very subject: the main 'speakers' were myself and a certain 'j0nn0.' One of his parting shots now forms part of my signature, as you can see.
One thing that became very clear from j0nn0's argument was that he could not concieve of a non-religious morality because he needed any moral code to have some ultimate purpose and ultimate judge. This is, of course, a very common opinion -- that once gods are removed from the equation, everything becomes meaningless and all that remains is a descent into nihilism and madness.
One common argument against non-religious moralities is that they are either nihilistic or utilitarian, and that somehow utilitarianism doesn't count. Proponents of such arguments have already blinded themselves to the possibility that 'true meaning' (whatever that means!) can come from any source but a god. They have also blinded themselves to the fact that even their god-centred moralities are utilitarian -- but it is the god that determines the utility, not man.
To swing sharply back on to the original topic, I again assert that a moral code can be constructed independently of a religion. It may later become semi-religious (as Greenhat has pointed out), but that is not its origin. Of course, these terms do need some definition. By moral code I mean a system that can tell us which of a given set of actions is 'best' in some way, an ordering or some kind. I don't see that any of the definitions of religion we've had so far are sufficient to guarantee that all moral codes must be based in some religion.
How important do you think it is to have a moral code and for those that feel they do have one, do you put it into practise?
it would appear that when we do most things we do not consult our moral code, we may act on the spur of the moment, what then determines our actions, self-preservation?
If this is the case how can we claim to be moral beings?
Or is it the case that we must ingrain our moral code so deeply that all our actions even subconscious acts will comply with this code........
I know right from wrong, i make decisions based upon my own personal beliefs, i do not need a book to tell me how to think.
:rolleyes:
Easy to demonstrate your assertion, since Buddhism qualifies as originating basically as you have described. Although it may be conceivable that such a code would not become a religion, I think it is highly likely by the nature of people that such code ends up being a religion (not even semi-religious, but a full blown faith) at least for some people.
If you do something that is wrong, like raping someone, looking at pictures of kiddies or demanding that Iraq is nuked, you can be classed as immoral.
Someone who deliberately puts people out of work to save profit is immoral, someone who sacks someone for the slightest indiscretion could also be argued to be immoral.
At the same time, people who fleece the welfare system out of millions of pounds, are immoral because that money is diverted from needier people.
But then, like someone said earlier, it is entirely subjective.
Yes, and that subjectivity is unfortunately the whole problem. You and I might have little trouble agreeing on what constitutes right and wrong (at least for the most part), but there are plenty of people who would disagree with us, but would also consider themselves moral individuals. As an extreme example, Hitler probably considered himself a moral man, and might well have thought that we were immoral, or at the very least misguided, for disagreeing with him. The problem then becomes one of who has the right to define the boundaries of morality.
Sadly, I have to agree. Humanity often has a certain sheep like quality. They may prefer to be led than to have to think for themselves.
Usually the ones with the guns or the power, which leads us to an interesting irony. The ones who claim morality is theirs, are the ones who kill to enforce their morality.