West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Rugged Monk on October 01, 2008, 01:44:21 AM
-
Whatchall think......
-
Of course... I'm the living proof nigga
-
yeah but specifically how you explain it, (know any philosophers whose bout it bout it?) how...
how can you be moral without religious influence...where did you get your morales from then?
-
is it possible to be moral when you DO have a religious affiliation?
-
is it possible to be moral when you DO have a religious affiliation?
exactly,i know/knew plenty of worthless mother fuckers who consider themselves religious...
-
is it possible to be moral when you DO have a religious affiliation?
That's a better question.
-
is it possible to be moral when you DO have a religious affiliation?
exactly,i know/knew plenty of worthless mother fuckers who consider themselves religious...
ive probably known more "worthless mother fuckers who consider themselves religious" then worthless muthafuckas who did not consider themselves religious. Alot of people hide behind their religion.
-
Of course... I'm the living proof nigga
That's why you don't celebrate Christmas, right? Or respect your elders. Or accept your Sundays off from work. The whole protestant work ethic never even got anywhere near you. Oh, and also, I understand you don't wear clothes in public on a hot summer day. You're 100% freed from religious influences. I see.
What I'm saying is that you might not be moral because of your religiousness, but you'll still be influenced by religion because that's what shaped the culture that gives form to our world. That's what reflects back onto your personal morality: your acceptance or opposing of the morals of the world around you.
So in short, no, given the social environment we're now in, there'll always be religious influences on your morals. Hypothetically speaking, however, a "new" society made up of "blank" people on a deserted island would start giving shape to a new culture of theirs, but they would almost certainly resort back to some conceptions of the supernatural in order to explain that which they cannot explain. It's a natural coping strategy; humans need that to stay psychologically healthy.
-
Of course... I'm the living proof nigga
No you aren't. You may be moral, but you were raised in a society of heavy religious influence.
The question itself cannot be answered unless you find a society based on atheism. And then the philosophical question of what is religion comes into play.
Are there people that would be moral despite believing in no after life? Yes there are. Is religion defined by a belief in afterlife?
-
What I'm saying is that you might not be moral because of your religiousness, but you'll still be influenced by religion because that's what shaped the culture that gives form to our world. That's what reflects back onto your personal morality: your acceptance or opposing of the morals of the world around you.
[/quote]
Good point.
The question itself cannot be answered unless you find a society based on atheism. And then the philosophical question of what is religion comes into play.
Good point. good points.
Societies that are based on aetheism....mmmm....how about communist Russia and China? The government killed millions of it's own people...however, Russian society was a very cohesive society and liberal and tolerant in regards to nudity and sexual freedom, etc and they did have rule of law...so during this time where did their ethics and morality draw from then? (personally I believe that the disregard for religion in communist Russia helped contribute to the mass killings of its own citizens, because religion can be a bedrock and champion of morality against the state, however it can also be the Beast itself as the Pope admitted this century. Religion can be a source and reference of morality.
Are there people that would be moral despite believing in no after life? Yes there are. Is religion defined by a belief in afterlife?
The greatest contribution of religion to the world is it's morals. So id say, no, religion is not solely defined by belief in the afterlife or even in the belief in a god, however the morals and ethics of religion is often linked to the belief in god. So does morality require a belief in God?
"Convinced that there is no eternal life awaiting him,
he [man] will strive all the more to brighten his life on earth
and rationally improve his condition in harmony with that of his fellows."
- Ernst Haeckel. [The Wonders of Life, p. 108.]
Rugged Monk is in deep thought. I gots to write an essay on this...The question is:
'Religion and morality are inseparable from good government.' Discuss with reference to theocratic governments past and present.
-
yeah but specifically how you explain it, (know any philosophers whose bout it bout it?) how...
Yes, Ayn Rands objectivist school of thought deals with this very subject. They have many followers and are somewhat related to Libertarian politics on individual freedom, and the virtue of selfishness. Harry Browne teaches something similar, I prefer his brand of it to that of Ayn Rands.
Harry Browne says morality is... "A systematic attempt to recognize all the relevant consequences of your acts. It's purpose is to prevent you from doing something hastily that might interfere with your long-term goals".
So basically he is saying it's a code of contact that allows you to act with discipline at times you might otherwise be tempted to act hastily or emotionally.
He then sets about teaching his students to develop their own code of contact that is in keeping with their own nature and goals. For himself, he has certain morals like "never present yourself to be anything than who you really are (not lying)" and "never expect anyone to act from your knowledge, perspective, or objectives. Assume that his viewpoints will differ in some ways from yours", "never make important decisions while emotions are dominating your mind".
how can you be moral without religious influence...where did you get your morales from then?
So these morals are not coming from religious influence, but rather he simply considers what his goals are (making sure the goals are realistic and achievable), and then sets about making a code of conduct consistent with his own naturethat will allow him to achieve those goals. For example, if he knows it's in his nature that he has a sensitive personality. He wouldn't set about making a code of conduct that involved dealing out 'tough love' to those he cared about or being unsympathetic. Rather he would make a code of conduct consistent with his sensitive nature (as an example).
-
Of course... I'm the living proof nigga
That's why you don't celebrate Christmas, right? Or respect your elders. Or accept your Sundays off from work. The whole protestant work ethic never even got anywhere near you. Oh, and also, I understand you don't wear clothes in public on a hot summer day. You're 100% freed from religious influences. I see.
What I'm saying is that you might not be moral because of your religiousness, but you'll still be influenced by religion because that's what shaped the culture that gives form to our world. That's what reflects back onto your personal morality: your acceptance or opposing of the morals of the world around you.
So in short, no, given the social environment we're now in, there'll always be religious influences on your morals. Hypothetically speaking, however, a "new" society made up of "blank" people on a deserted island would start giving shape to a new culture of theirs, but they would almost certainly resort back to some conceptions of the supernatural in order to explain that which they cannot explain. It's a natural coping strategy; humans need that to stay psychologically healthy.
I don't celebrate Christmas, and I don't care which day I have off. I wouldn't call the fact that I am not running around in public naked religious influence. If you go as far as to say that culture-society-humans have been in a somewhat religious environment and therefore have a share of religious influence, as to say, Christians usually ate food when they were hungry, then yes, everybody has got religious influence. But that was not the point of the thread now was it?
-
Another important point to make is that while religion teaches altruism and self-lessness, the same morals can be taught from a selfish perspective.
Instead of teaching a chile he should steal because God says so, he can be taught that he shouldn't steal because people will shun a thief and not want to be his friend.
Or that he shouldn't lie, not because "God says so" but rather because the consequences of a lie are that one has to continue pretending and carrying on that lie far longer than they origionally intended and that ultimately they can get what is more in harmony with their nature by approaching the world directly and honestly.
-
Another important point to make is that while religion teaches altruism and self-lessness, the same morals can be taught from a selfish perspective.
Instead of teaching a chile he should steal because God says so, he can be taught that he shouldn't steal because people will shun a thief and not want to be his friend.
Or that he shouldn't lie, not because "God says so" but rather because the consequences of a lie are that one has to continue pretending and carrying on that lie far longer than they origionally intended and that ultimately they can get what is more in harmony with their nature by approaching the world directly and honestly.
Unfortuantely the world doesn't work like that. Sociopaths usually cope very well with society. Smart thieves don't get caught. Etc
-
how can you be moral without religious influence...where did you get your morales from then?
So these morals are not coming from religious influence, but rather he simply considers what his goals are (making sure the goals are realistic and achievable), and then sets about making a code of conduct consistent with his own naturethat will allow him to achieve those goals. For example, if he knows it's in his nature that he has a sensitive personality. He wouldn't set about making a code of conduct that involved dealing out 'tough love' to those he cared about or being unsympathetic. Rather he would make a code of conduct consistent with his sensitive nature (as an example).
Since you mentioned Ayn Rand already, let me add to that Ayn Rand's interpretation:
With no God to give our existence a meaning beyond itself, and your life ending the moment you die, your life can only be an end in itself. That means in order to be succesful, all of the actions in your life should be in order to get the best of it. Maximize life. You'll learn when things are going wrong, because ultimately they'll cause you to get hurt, and hurt is a (pre)sign of death. That's why you must always be as objective as possible towards your own sensations and towards everything that happens around you, because through reason you will understand the meaning it all has in relation to your life.
The outcome is a human being which supposedly stays true to its nature (Ayn Rand would call man a "rational being," although that's debatable). If your every action is in support of your own life, that means people would work together in terms of rationality, integrity and egoism (not egotist behavior, but simply the consideration of your own interests. Egotism isn't rational at all). In a truly rational society, no government would be needed, other than to protect peoples basic rights (property rights and the protection thereof, which includes your own safety, as your body also belongs to you). No obligations but those to your own life; it's a failure of your integrity if you can't live up to that.
In short, that's what it comes down to. The implications reach pretty far. Nature can't be fooled, thus we must live with it the best we can.
-
Of course... I'm the living proof nigga
That's why you don't celebrate Christmas, right? Or respect your elders. Or accept your Sundays off from work. The whole protestant work ethic never even got anywhere near you. Oh, and also, I understand you don't wear clothes in public on a hot summer day. You're 100% freed from religious influences. I see.
What I'm saying is that you might not be moral because of your religiousness, but you'll still be influenced by religion because that's what shaped the culture that gives form to our world. That's what reflects back onto your personal morality: your acceptance or opposing of the morals of the world around you.
So in short, no, given the social environment we're now in, there'll always be religious influences on your morals. Hypothetically speaking, however, a "new" society made up of "blank" people on a deserted island would start giving shape to a new culture of theirs, but they would almost certainly resort back to some conceptions of the supernatural in order to explain that which they cannot explain. It's a natural coping strategy; humans need that to stay psychologically healthy.
I don't celebrate Christmas, and I don't care which day I have off. I wouldn't call the fact that I am not running around in public naked religious influence. If you go as far as to say that culture-society-humans have been in a somewhat religious environment and therefore have a share of religious influence, as to say, Christians usually ate food when they were hungry, then yes, everybody has got religious influence. But that was not the point of the thread now was it?
I thought it was the point of this thread, since it's talking about being moral without religious INFLUENCE, instead of just being moral without being religious. The influences reach pretty far. So you tell me why you wear clothes in public on a hot summer day. Is that not influenced by the policemen who would give you a fee for running around naked? Are those policies not based on a culture which clings onto chastity because of its background of Christian morality?
-
Another important point to make is that while religion teaches altruism and self-lessness, the same morals can be taught from a selfish perspective.
Instead of teaching a chile he should steal because God says so, he can be taught that he shouldn't steal because people will shun a thief and not want to be his friend.
Or that he shouldn't lie, not because "God says so" but rather because the consequences of a lie are that one has to continue pretending and carrying on that lie far longer than they origionally intended and that ultimately they can get what is more in harmony with their nature by approaching the world directly and honestly.
Unfortuantely the world doesn't work like that. Sociopaths usually cope very well with society. Smart thieves don't get caught. Etc
Sociopaths aren't exactly mentally healthy. Smart thieves might not get caught, but you're breaking down the fundamentals of your own integrity if you go around stealing from other people, not giving a shit about them, yet knowing that they're human beings too, just like yourself. Disrespecting their property rights means you're basically disrespecting the existence of property rights on a whole. That's anarchy, in the most violent sense of the word. That's a free pass on "anything goes". Whether it's stealing a news paper from a store or putting a bullet through someone's head, the principle is the same. Saying it's okay for you to steal a news paper, by its essence means saying it's okay for someone else to shoot you in the head. Even though the comparison may seem ridiculous, they're really variations of the same theme. It takes a lot for a sociopath to mentally suppress all of that, and sure as hell they wouldn't get any happier from all of that. Such coping mechanisms may make them fit for survival, but that doesn't make them fit for life.
-
Of course... I'm the living proof nigga
That's why you don't celebrate Christmas, right? Or respect your elders. Or accept your Sundays off from work. The whole protestant work ethic never even got anywhere near you. Oh, and also, I understand you don't wear clothes in public on a hot summer day. You're 100% freed from religious influences. I see.
What I'm saying is that you might not be moral because of your religiousness, but you'll still be influenced by religion because that's what shaped the culture that gives form to our world. That's what reflects back onto your personal morality: your acceptance or opposing of the morals of the world around you.
So in short, no, given the social environment we're now in, there'll always be religious influences on your morals. Hypothetically speaking, however, a "new" society made up of "blank" people on a deserted island would start giving shape to a new culture of theirs, but they would almost certainly resort back to some conceptions of the supernatural in order to explain that which they cannot explain. It's a natural coping strategy; humans need that to stay psychologically healthy.
I don't celebrate Christmas, and I don't care which day I have off. I wouldn't call the fact that I am not running around in public naked religious influence. If you go as far as to say that culture-society-humans have been in a somewhat religious environment and therefore have a share of religious influence, as to say, Christians usually ate food when they were hungry, then yes, everybody has got religious influence. But that was not the point of the thread now was it?
I thought it was the point of this thread, since it's talking about being moral without religious INFLUENCE, instead of just being moral without being religious. The influences reach pretty far. So you tell me why you wear clothes in public on a hot summer day. Is that not influenced by the policemen who would give you a fee for running around naked? Are those policies not based on a culture which clings onto chastity because of its background of Christian morality?
There are places in which it is legal to wear no clothes. Certain beaches and shit. I still don't go there naked, some people do. It's not my style. But let's not get too hung up on practical examples. I thought the point of the thread was if anybody could be "good" without any reward from God, or any sort or responsibility towards a personal God who sees everything, or without repercussions from an entity that you cannot trick (unlike the law, your parents, etc). I might have been wrong with that assumption. Assuming I was wrong, the question at hand can not be confined to "morals".. in that case it's general behaviour (or judgement, etc.) It's a certain value system that we have, and that is influenced by religion as our past societies have always been exposed to religion or irrational beliefs. In this case, I of course agree. But the bible is certainly not the reason why I don't split wigs, it's more of a coincidence.
-
Another important point to make is that while religion teaches altruism and self-lessness, the same morals can be taught from a selfish perspective.
Instead of teaching a chile he should steal because God says so, he can be taught that he shouldn't steal because people will shun a thief and not want to be his friend.
Or that he shouldn't lie, not because "God says so" but rather because the consequences of a lie are that one has to continue pretending and carrying on that lie far longer than they origionally intended and that ultimately they can get what is more in harmony with their nature by approaching the world directly and honestly.
Unfortuantely the world doesn't work like that. Sociopaths usually cope very well with society. Smart thieves don't get caught. Etc
Sociopaths aren't exactly mentally healthy. Smart thieves might not get caught, but you're breaking down the fundamentals of your own integrity if you go around stealing from other people, not giving a shit about them, yet knowing that they're human beings too, just like yourself. Disrespecting their property rights means you're basically disrespecting the existence of property rights on a whole. That's anarchy, in the most violent sense of the word. That's a free pass on "anything goes". Whether it's stealing a news paper from a store or putting a bullet through someone's head, the principle is the same. Saying it's okay for you to steal a news paper, by its essence means saying it's okay for someone else to shoot you in the head. Even though the comparison may seem ridiculous, they're really variations of the same theme. It takes a lot for a sociopath to mentally suppress all of that, and sure as hell they wouldn't get any happier from all of that. Such coping mechanisms may make them fit for survival, but that doesn't make them fit for life.
See, that's what people like you do, you rationalize it down to the point that those people are completely irrational and unhappy, when in reality, there simply are bad people who are successfully having reckless fun out there with no God to ever punish them (from an atheist point of view). Of course this may sound over-simplyfied to you; and you would never accept it cause that whole strive-for-oneself-concept gets a snag.
-
Whatchall think......
Absolutely. I'd even go as far as to argue that religion can actually breed immorality.
-
See, that's what people like you do, you rationalize it down to the point that those people are completely irrational and unhappy, when in reality, there simply are bad people who are successfully having reckless fun out there with no God to ever punish them (from an atheist point of view). Of course this may sound over-simplyfied to you; and you would never accept it cause that whole strive-for-oneself-concept gets a snag.
7even is right.
We can not say that the thief is any less happy. Happiness is subjective, we can not determine for someone else what will make them happy. It could be totally possible that a thief could find a happiness that is not only temporary but durable. So we can only say that we have chosen for ourselves, after viewing the consequences to ONE'S OWN life, that we may achieve greater happiness by NOT stealing... but we can't claim absolutely that the thief is always less happy.
Our only concern with the thief now becomes... not whether or not he is happy, but how can we guard our property against the thief. And by the way, government is not needed for this purpose, as many believe. One can merely take measures to avoid the thief, use locks, alarms, their are also many private security agencies available to them, bodyguards, etc... depending on the amount of wealth you must secure, and how much you are willing to expend for that purpose.
-
yeah but specifically how you explain it, (know any philosophers whose bout it bout it?) how...
how can you be moral without religious influence...where did you get your morales from then?
my philosophia teacher use to tell us that god was not moral because he's describe in the bible as a love being and is only able to do the right thing. You can't be moral if you're not able to chose between the bad and evil. Like there's no right without wrong. In the ancient testament, god is moral, for exemple when the devil ask him to prove job faith and put him to test he's doing wrong, he has the capacity to chose. It's a none sense most christian religion ask people to be amoral not moral or unmoral