Introspective on Morality

I don’t belive one can know until they’ve actually experienced it.
How can we, sitting here in front of a computer, say for sure how we would react to CC’s position. How can we possibly relate.

It’s odd but the less religious the west gets the more moral it seems to get. Perhaps a strange co-incidence only, or is it?

I personaly don’t believe religion has that much to do with morality.

I agree; they are two completely seperate things.

I think blind faith in religion allows you to do rather immoral acts such as killing in the name of god. The crusades come to mind. If they are heathen it’s not as bad to kill them or even allowable perhaps.

Most of the killing and hatred in the middle east is religious based as to is the conflict between muslims and hindus. In Africa there is strife between animist, muslims and christians.

If there was no religion half of the reasons for waging war would be gone. The English civil war was over religion, many of the wars in europe in prior centuries were religious based.

@BigBlocky:

I think blind faith in religion allows you to do rather immoral acts such as killing in the name of god. The crusades come to mind. If they are heathen it’s not as bad to kill them or even allowable perhaps.

Most of the killing and hatred in the middle east is religious based as to is the conflict between muslims and hindus. In Africa there is strife between animist, muslims and christians.

If there was no religion half of the reasons for waging war would be gone. The English civil war was over religion, many of the wars in europe in prior centuries were religious based.

disagree.
After the reformation, religion was closely alligned with nationalism. Just as you had the “Protestants” vs. the “Catholics” - in many respects it might also be divided into “Rome-followers” vs. “independents”. This is a VERY simplistic way of looking at things, but the thing is, religion and nationalism are/were well intertwined in Europe such that one equalled another. If you are Portuguese/Spanish/Itallian - you are Catholic. If German, Scandanavian - Luthren/Protestant. If Swiss - Calvinist, Dutch - Dutch reformed, etc.
OF course this doesn’t apply as well today, but may to some degree in some circles.

@cystic:

@BigBlocky:

I think blind faith in religion allows you to do rather immoral acts such as killing in the name of god. The crusades come to mind. If they are heathen it’s not as bad to kill them or even allowable perhaps.
…
If there was no religion half of the reasons for waging war would be gone. The English civil war was over religion, many of the wars in europe in prior centuries were religious based.

disagree.
After the reformation, religion was closely alligned with nationalism. Just as you had the “Protestants” vs. the “Catholics” - in many respects it might also be divided into “Rome-followers” vs. “independents”. This is a VERY simplistic way of looking at things, but the thing is, religion and nationalism are/were well intertwined in Europe such that one equalled another. If you are Portuguese/Spanish/Itallian - you are Catholic. If German, Scandanavian - Luthren/Protestant. If Swiss - Calvinist, Dutch - Dutch reformed, etc.

I have to agree with BB here, and disagree with you CC (on some parts at least).
If you take a look at the major religious wars in europe, they mostly were not between nations but civil wars. We had the Hugenottes in France, lots of trouble in England, the 30-Years-War raging through the german states (although here you find international interests/fighting units).
The connection of nations and religion came later, as a part of “clearing up” the mess and trying to make such wars less probable in the future. The main part on that was done by an act in the Holy Roman Empire, stating that the local lord can pick a confession and his people have to follow. This happening very early in the existance of Lutheranism made Prostestantism quite a “nationalistic” confession. The Reformed (Calvin et al.) did not have such an impact in Germany, but rose in already “existing” states (Switzerland, Netherlands (not really, but close enough, not as scattered as Germany), England and France), thus the connection between land/ruler and faith/confession was not implemented from the start (it came later, kind of, in England though).

So, i guess that CC is right with his conclusion that religion became a pretty national thing, but got there from the wrong starting point.

F_alk, an impressive survey of religion in Europe I must say. I’m not so sure I agree with you dezrtfish. Historically, religious institutes don’t allow people to showcase morality, they mold peoples morality. They indoctrinate, preach, brainwash, mold, form, impose, shape and direct attitudes.

Religion when properly used can help to overcome immoral tendencies, so can moral suasion of peers. Christianity at it’s foundation has the 10 commandments, you can’t get more basic and fundemantal then that. Yet the institution of christianity has commited genocide. The poster boy for christians is Jesus who was very religiously tolerent, and yet the crusades occured.

Christianity is probably one of the poorest examples of what good can come out of religion, though in recent times it has improved, Jerry Fallwell excluded.

BB

I think a more important question would be, is there a universal morality? I’ll buy that everyone has morals, but is there one morality in common with the entire human race? And if there isn’t then how can we justify organizations like the UN? The subject of universal morality is, I think, one of the most difficult questions I’ve ever come across. Can I really remove my view point far enough from my own morals to see if another, contrasting set of morals could possibly ever be considered right? It’s a difficult question, and I wonder what you have to say about it.

@dezrtfish:

That is exactly my point. I belive there is a universal morality. Of course there is no way to prove this point, but to me it makes sense.

As a community it is our duty to try to assist each other in staying as true as possible to that “moral code”. I think that is the point of society.

Can I really remove my view point far enough from my own morals to see if another, contrasting set of morals could possibly ever be considered right?

Give me an example of contrasting morals so that I can more clearly understand your question.

simply look at things from the perspective of a sociopath. These people as well as others with a wide variety of personality, mood, and psychotic disorders as well as fugue states (the misnomered “split personality” syndrome) may have moralities vastly different from the rest of the population.
One might suggest that people with these “disorders” might well be excluded from the equation, but i submit that these designations were designed by other humans - those who might impose their own moralities on the population by “marginalizing” these people (far-fetched, i admit - can you tell i don’t like psychiatry?).
Further to - i would suggest that for the “big issues” - life and death, protection and aggression, self and others, etc. that i could find examples of the opposite for every moralistic stance. There might be “small” ones that we all have in common, however i would have a lot of difficulty imagining this to be the case.

@dezrtfish:

I believe that everyone has an innate sense of what is right and wrong. …
For example one might say, “Hitler was a man with no morals”. I don’t believe this is a true statement. I believe Hitler was a man who was able to suppress his morals to accomplish what he did.

Here you assume that the innate sense of what is right and wrong is universal.
I do not agree with that. I think that (to stick to your example), Hitler really believed that there were different values for different people.
History of man is full of this behavior (slavery through all times, racism, sexism etc.). Still, i do not agree with this behavior.

@bossk:

I think a more important question would be, is there a universal morality…And if there isn’t then how can we justify organizations like the UN? …Can I really remove my view point far enough from my own morals to see if another, contrasting set of morals could possibly ever be considered right.

For the first and third,as isaid, i don’t think there is a universal morality. The “different values”-behavior seems to be common that i would (provokingly) put it as part of that universal morality, and put myself out of this universal codex.
For the third: The UN is a post WW2 - western culture dominated club. Still, it is the best try mankind ever made to find some common ground and prevent crimes that are against the common western morality set up during the 18th century (mainly by english and french thinkers, taken up by US and french politicians). From my background as western european, i agree with the ideals proclaimed there, therefore i support the UN.

@dezrtfish:

I belive there is a universal morality. …
As a community it is our duty to try to assist each other in staying as true as possible to that “moral code”. I think that is the point of society.

And that would be the point of the UN as well: try to find something that every woman and man can agree to, and watch over these -probably few- values.

I think there is an universal system of morals. If you look at the many different cultures you will find many different things in comon. For example, Murder a person is always wrong. But this isn’t really the issue. The issue is “what is a person?” I wouldn’t be surprised if Hitler thought it was wrong to murder someone. However, his definition of a person, a human, was different. He ordered the Holocost because he didn’t think that Jews were people. According to Hitler’s worldview, Jews were sub-human, animals, and therefore, could be killed with a clean conscience. Cultures may vary on how many wives a man can have, but you couldn’t just go out and have any woman you wanted. In other instances, the rules would only apply to that paticular group or tribe, but other tribes or people groups were outside of whatever system of ethics they held, and so a man could go raiding and come back with two or three women. But that didn’t change the fact that in his society, and probably in the women’s society, you couldn’t just go out at take any woman you wanted.

Anyway, I would be interested in hearing those of you who do not think there is a universal code of ethics to answer two questions:
(1) What is Truth?
(2) Does Truth ever change?
I’ve read through all of the past postings and this is a really great discussion.

Jacob

Ah, you pulled out Truth (with a capital “T”). I believe there is no Truth, only a few truths. These truths must be determined in each society and by each individual, and therefore truth is constantly changing. To say truth is static would be denying history. You may call me relativist scum, but I’ll never give in to absolutism.

A different view of…

Universal Morality -

1)All morals may change due to internal conflict brought on by external stimuli.
2)I want to breathe.
3)I want to be nutritionally satisfied. NOTE: This may range from vitamin suppliments to food to sustain my needed(subjective) level of activity to gorged.
4)I want to get enough sleep to satisfy my body’s needs(subjective.)

I do not accept “Murder is wrong” as a valid moral stance. If you were going to murder my family, I WOULD MURDER YOU and IT IS STILL MURDER. It depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

/30

@El:

A different view of…

Universal Morality -

1)All morals may change due to internal conflict brought on by external stimuli.
2)I want to breathe.
3)I want to be nutritionally satisfied. NOTE: This may range from vitamin suppliments to food to sustain my needed(subjective) level of activity to gorged.
4)I want to get enough sleep to satisfy my body’s needs(subjective.)

I do not accept “Murder is wrong” as a valid moral stance. If you were going to murder my family, I WOULD MURDER YOU and IT IS STILL MURDER. It depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

/30

don’t forget “5”

• i want to have sex and i have a biological need to reproduce -
  the inner voice of date-rapers everywhere.