Strongly disagree.
This was an easy one. I’m an atheist. I’m a moral person. That’s all the proof I need.
Actually, most gamers consider God Mode to be a cheat.
Daniel
Strongly agree. Religious.
It is very immoral to not want to be eaten first.
Actually, I’d have to agree in a way, though for a semantic reason:
In my view, the idea of morality is contingent on submission and faithfulness to a higher power, and thereby applies ot religious people, if not all of them.
An atheist can be ethical by adhering to a non-religious standard or philosophy.
Alternatively, the words ethical and moral may be used as a comparitive to the speaker’s own situation ot beliefs, and thereby the target may be moral in that sense.
That said, I believe that religious teachings help people become moral more easily.
(small negative, small negative) don’t remember exact coords.
strongly disagree.
Definition of morality, in the multiple definitions I looked at (including websters), none required religion. Which, to me, makes this more of a factual question than an opinion question.
The common thread in the definitions appears to be a system of ideas of right and wrong.
It could be any system.
I personally believe there is no absolute morality (and if you disagree, I would be interested in a proof of something that is universally morally either “right” or “wrong”).
As others have asked, smiling, how do you know whether the higher power to which you’re submitting is good? How may we distinguish between Cthulhu and Yahweh–or, if you’d prefer a non-silly example, what makes a worshipper of Yahweh more moral than a devotee of Loki?
It seems to me that, if we can state that Yahweh is superior in any sense beyond “more powerful,” then we must be able to do so without relying on Yahweh’s pronouncements of what’s moral; otherwise, we’re presuming that which we want to prove.
And if we can state that Yahweh is morally superior to Loki without referring to Yahweh’s definition of moral, then that means we’ve got a definition independent of Yahweh’s–and on what basis may we say that the religious have such a definition while the nonreligious do not?
On the other hand, perhaps we cannot say that Yahweh is superior to Loki in any sense except the sense of power: Yahweh’s the Supreme Ruler, whereas Loki is a minor demon (or is nonexistent), and therefore we better do what Yahweh says. To me, this appears a mockery of morality, a travesty that renders the concepts of good and evil meaningless.
Daniel
Strongly Disagree - Don’t remember my P.C. Rating
I’m surprised that no-one has cited Euthyphro’s Dilemma as a challenge to the original proposition. If you believe that the God your worship is moral you are faced with a choice: Is God moral because he is God and everything he does is good by definition, or are ‘moral’ actions moral because of some intrinsic property or facet they posess?
If you believe the former then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, the words themselves have no meaning, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good because he can change what ‘Good’ is in the blink of his ethereal eye. Adherents to this particular theological formulation therefore have to admit that God is quite literally amoral and if God isn’t moral then religion can’t be linked to morality.
If you believe the latter, then you have to admit that good and evil are concepts that are logically anterior to God and, therefore, one can be moral without being religious.
(-5.13, -6.36) Strongly disagree.
Do you have any cite for that semantic difference between the terms “moral” and “ethical”? Or is that just the way you choose to use the terms here?
You know, if we adopt a working definition of “moral” behavior that is not inherently biased towards religious believers (e.g., one that does not include religious devotion as an instance of moral behavior as such), then this ought to be one of the few propositions of the Political Compass that has a scientifically verifiable correct answer. Merely construct a reliable psychometric instrument to test an individual’s level of religious commitment (that shoudn’t be too hard – I think some tests already measure that); and another instrument to measure a person’s moral quality (somewhat harder); administer both tests to a give group of subjects, and look for a statistically significant correlation between the results of test A and test B.
Has this ever been done?
OTOH, in the Crito, Socrates puts forth an argument for obeying authority (the Laws of Athens) regardless of whether authority is right or wrong; therefore, having been condemned to death under those laws, Socrates cannot in good conscience take the proferred chance to break out of jail and escape his scheduled execution. (Inconsistent of him, since, a few years previously, Socrates had openly defied the authority of the Thirty Tyrants when they ordered him to arrest an enemy of the state.)
Agree, under protest.
Checking Webster’s, religion and religious are words mostly used with practice of belief. Monks and Nuns are some times refered to as “the religious.” But more generally, religion seems to be the actions you go through to live out your belief. So it seems to me that if you have things that you believe are moral, you can’t be a moral person unless you actually do those things, even if it will be at a cost to you. As smiling_bandit may have made these points too.
That said, I suspect that what the proposition was intended to say was that you must adhere to the official standard of your religion to be moral even if you think one or other of the tenets are crap. Which is ridiculous. So I think the whole thing is badly phrased.
Not so. Religion is not belief or practice of belief generally, but only belief or practice of belief having to do with spiritual or supernatural matters. It is possible to believe in, and act upon belief in, moral or ethical principles that are not rooted in or in any way connected to the supernatural or supposed divine revelation.
If you say a religion must be concerned with the spiritual, then I suppose the logic follows, but why define it so narrowly? Or to put it another way, if you are allowed to have your own beliefs, then following those beliefs should constitute religous behavior in you regardless. (Certainly nothing else would count.) And it seems a bit mean to say “well that action didn’t count as a religious duty, he thought first!” or “that was ethically based!”
I just don’t think that religious behavior is so narrowly confined. I know the world is full of religious assholes, but the practice of most religions include actions that are generally acceptable on a moral and ethical basis. The average man on the street would probably rank giving to charity as a higher religious duty than going to church every Sunday, but does he do either? And if so, would you consider him moral? If he went to church regularly but didn’t give to the poor, then I would have trouble calling him moral, but then I think the local priest would have similar troubles.
Atheist -2.75,-3.69
Interesting discussion. Can someone please give me a definative difference between Moral and Ethical? To my reading it seems that Moral is a set of standards of good & bad, right & wrong that we BELIEVE to be true, in our minds.
Ethical is the following of these standards in our actions. If this is close to correct, is it possible to ACT morally (as a set of beliefs) or to have ethical BELIEFS ( as a thought process, not as action)? Follow? Is it that Morals are in the mind while ethics are the physical manifestations? I am not trying to be funny or difficult but I feel I could better consider the discussion with a clearer sense of definition. Thanks