Are morals derived from religion/God??

[ranma1/2]

:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up
This morning on CNN I heard that there is some scientific evidence that morals evolved. I have looked for supporting evidence, but I haven't found any.

But it makes sense. If your group has morals, your chance of survival is increased.

I wouldnt say Moral persay since we cant get a clear def of that. But I would say that in general behaviors that aid the group had an advantage.

 

[Sunnih]

That is not the definition of 'dictatorship' generally used in the social sciences. Normally it is defined as control by a person or small group without any serious constitutional oversight. It usually means there is no independent judicial branch. Another problem with your approach is that it completely ignores the other branch in modern democracies, that of the legislative branch. The whole principle of separation of powers is non-existent in dictatorships. Since neither the legislative branch, nor the judicial branch are independent there are no real institutions that can check if the rulers are abiding by any kind of constitution. Same goes for the press, which is usually very restricted in dictatorships.

Some definitions of dictatorship:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dictatorship
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030347/dictatorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship



Thats why I said the process of constitutional change is lengthy and complex. In almost all countries it requires at the very minimum fresh elections and thus a fresh parliament. Any rulers wanting to change the constitution will have to face the electorate before their changes can become law. So they are very much restricted in their actions. Formally, a ruler can't grant himself more powers based on a one-time popular mandate alone without first facing the 'will of the people'.



It is not correct though. There is no opposition in a dictatorship, there is no independent judiciary, there is no free press, no right to demonstrate, no right to create political parties, there is no independent legislative branch. All these factors, which are as much considered a core of modern liberal democracy as elections, fundamentally change the dynamics of rule. Dictators are simply not restricted in such ways.

First of all let me say that the discussion is about the reality of dictatorship or any regime. I fyou were to base your discussions only on definitions and what is on the paper, you will be surprised as to how "good" the socialism and comunism seem. Also any dictatorship will not be seen as a dictatorship while refering to it's own definitions. So the whole idea of looking at the definitions of any democratic society toward dictatorships would be equally repugnant as looking at the definitions of any dictatorship toward democracy. You should remember that any two conflicting groups will build definitions upon their understanding and at the same time hinting at the other group that they try to define in debasing tones, prases or comments. My point is in no way to defend dictatorships but to view the raised principles and any references with the same standard and constituency. If you keep this is mind you will see that what I am pointing at is correct although as I have said before the similarities are not equal and coherent but only in underlying principles and systematic aproach.

As for the process of constitutional changes and the time it takes, this goes for both parties although the balance is havier on the legislative side. Remember that most of the legislative or governing individuals or groups are upon consistent principles that may or may not neccessary be understood by the masses. You should remember that the formulation of any constitution in the first place is build upon principles and values agreed between the legislative class whether ruling or/and in opposition and any drafts and amendments are guided by this force. The people only chose what is being served on the table for them by these political forces. On the other hand the asumed neutrality of the enforcement bodies are one more obstacle of narrowing the gap between the legislative class and those who have to obey and abide by the legislation. I do accept that it is impossible to have the voice of the masses on every single matter and it's details and this is why the whole notion presented and pretended of democracy as the ultimate system of promugulating, delivering and ensuring the rule of the people, for the people and by the people is only a theoretical and oportunist notion. Empty slogans that never materialize.

As for opossition, independant judiciary, free press and maters such as these, if you wish we can discuss them but they too are no more free from criticism as the whole system itself. (very quickly) As for the judiciary, do not forget that it only opperates within the margins allowed and permitted by the legislation. This in itself makes it not completely independant but only independant of the dissagrements between the ruling and oposition legislative classes. as for free pres this to can be left free as long as you say what the legislative classes have allowed you to say and in the manner they have allowed you to say it. There is no need to mention examples as both you and me see them on daily basis. I agree that the comparison is not the same in dictatorship and democracy in a detailed manner but again the foundations are the same in principle though not exactly matching in observance and enforcement. We could go on and on on these topics but try to understand that I am talking from the point of foundations, branches and principles and guides only.

 

[Sunnih]

Suicides are IMHO not a valid indicator for measuring the average happiness among a population. Suicide is clearly a cultural phenomenon, it is more accepted in some cultures and a taboo in others. And lets not forget that there are hardly any mental health doctors in the developing world, so there are few to actually diagnose it.



Of course I take the statistic with a grain of salt, but it certainly can't be dismissed that easily. How can it be verified? I would say, read the research paper and the methodology they used. I'll quote a bit from the FAQ from the studies website:



So this is the measure of self-reported happiness. A simple question. "Are you happy?". Of course there are cultural issues with this, perhaps in some cultures there is a certain stigma attached to saying you are unhappy? But still, I think it is a fair indicator. You want to dismiss all statistics (except oddly enough those of rape and suicide apparently), but what is the alternative really? Anecdotal evidence? Gut feeling? You'll be hard pressed to use in-depth qualitative research methods and be able to compare countries as a whole. Whatever you want to say against statistics, they perform reasonably well when predicting elections, so on what grounds can you so easily reject them when people are asked if they are satisfied with their lives?

And as a final teaser:

Every single word and line you have posted can easily be rebuted and shown to be false. You would be very surprised indeed from the results of statistics if some learned people (from those whom you would mostly abhor), were to formulate questions and ask the masses about such. Statistics do not prove anything on the reality of the matter. Yes it can hint and be used to raise hypothesis, but that as far as it goes.

 

[Sunnih]

perceptions

With this I agree. But let us not forget that all that can be easily manipulated or altered if questions are asked the other way around.

 

[Sunnih]

Assurances? These figures are the result of scientific research on happiness. If you want details and 'assurances' read the website, or even better, read the scientific papers that form the basis for these figures I posted:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/keyliterature.htm

Website:
http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/

This is no analysis. This is blind following. As for websites and scientific papers and so on, this is all relative and it goes both ways. But this is another topic altogether.

 

[borboski]

Sunnih, your argument is basically:
A term like liberal democracy or dictatorship doesn't not accurate described liberal democracies or dictatorships.
I have worked this out.
Therefore I can decide what is or is not a dictatorship.
I do not have to share my own understanding of the characteristics of a dictatorship or liberal democracy.

 

[Sunnih]

Sunnih, your argument is basically:
A term like liberal democracy or dictatorship doesn't not accurate described liberal democracies or dictatorships.
I have worked this out.
Therefore I can decide what is or is not a dictatorship.
I do not have to share my own understanding of the characteristics of a dictatorship or liberal democracy.

Borboski. Neither do I have to share my understanding of such. None of us is under any obligation to do any of it and finally I see that we do agree on that. :thumbs_up

 

[borboski]

If you aren't going to give a clue of what you mean by the definitions you use, this makes language extremely difficult. At some point, you'll have to learn this, especially if you want to have constructive debate using the written word.

 

[Sunnih]

If you aren't going to give a clue of what you mean by the definitions you use, this makes language extremely difficult. At some point, you'll have to learn this, especially if you want to have constructive debate using the written word.

Borboski. The definitions I use are not new or unheard of before. You might not have heard them before. This does not make them obscure or components which make the language "difficult". You might want to check your knowledge about definitions in general and those I have used in particular. This particular post of yours shows that you have been "debating constructively" without even understanding what I said. This is further proof that I would be wasting time by continuing to discuss things with you in this thread. Stay safe.

 

[Muezzin]

What exactly does the definition or lack thereof of 'liberal democracy' have to do with whether or not morality is derived from religion/God?

 

[ranma1/2]

In my personal opinion, no, you don't need religion to have morals. However, religion is there to perfect morality and how these morals work. Not a huge article, but just something to think about.

if this is true then religion has been doing a bad job.
religion in general is used to give justification for certain rules or actions. "in general"

these same justifications can be done without religion as well.

 

[borboski]

Borboski. Neither do I have to share my understanding of such. None of us is under any obligation to do any of it and finally I see that we do agree on that. :thumbs_up

I hate to bump this - I haven't been on for ages. I should have put my response above all in a text box - I was trying to characterise how your position comes across:

E.g.

1. I (Sunnih) have concluded that the term "liberal democracy" doesn't accurately describe liberal democracies, nor "dictatorships" dictatorships.
2. I (Sunnih) can therefore decide what is or is not a LD or a dictatorship.
3. I (Sunnih) do not have to share my own characteristics of an LD of dictatorship.

You'll note that 1 + 2 or fine on their own, but to hold those positions and 3 as well makes for a pointless discussion, and will make you come across as either shifty or ill informed.

To then read your following response - if I point out that I don't understand what you mean by the terms you use (and honestly mate, you are throwing around terms like liberal democracy and dictatorship that no news agency, never mind academic would accept) and you feel that neither of us are under any obligation to explain what we mean by the terms we use... well, what on earth is the point of participating in debates? How are you ever going to learn anything or persuade anyone? Very disappointing.

 

[kwolney01]

Different religions have different morals and also different cultures/groups of people have different morals. Also when you look at morals from 50 years ago and today you'll seen that a lot has changed. In the west people have changed their morals what use to be wrong may not be looked at now today that doesn't mean that it really isn't wrong becuase it may be.

 

[root]

I think it is worth remembering that morals are hard wired into our brains from birth, regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion. We all start life sharing the same basic moral structure, this is proven. The rest is just conjecture and/or extelligence.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I think it is worth remembering that morals are hard wired into our brains from birth, regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion. We all start life sharing the same basic moral structure, this is proven. The rest is just conjecture and/or extelligence.

lol is extelligence really a word?


anyway i kind of agree, morals and values are something we grow up with. Then its hard to see things another way, unless we have a serious change of heart

 

[ranma1/2]

I think it is worth remembering that morals are hard wired into our brains from birth, regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion. We all start life sharing the same basic moral structure, this is proven. The rest is just conjecture and/or extelligence.

what morals and evidence?

im sure that we have developed some behavior patterns that have been passed down genetically but specific morals?

 

[root]

lol is extelligence really a word?

Extelligence

what morals

a passenger on an-out-of-control train or trolley. The conductor has fainted and the trolley is headed toward five people walking on the track. The banks are so steep that they won't be able to get off the track in time. The track has a side track leading off to the left and the passenger can turn the trolley onto it. There is, however, one person on the left hand track, the passenger can turn the trolley killing the one, or refrain from flipping the switch letting the five die.

Is it morally permissible for the passenger to flip the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

 

[ranma1/2]

Extelligence




a passenger on an-out-of-control train or trolley. The conductor has fainted and the trolley is headed toward five people walking on the track. The banks are so steep that they won't be able to get off the track in time. The track has a side track leading off to the left and the passenger can turn the trolley onto it. There is, however, one person on the left hand track, the passenger can turn the trolley killing the one, or refrain from flipping the switch letting the five die.

Is it morally permissible for the passenger to flip the switch, turning the trolley onto the side track?

?? you have only stated a moral dilema that people will choose different moral actions.

so??

 

[root]

?? you have only stated a moral dilema that people will choose different moral actions.

so??

Stay with me here, answer the question?

 

[ranma1/2]

Stay with me here, answer the question?

show how we all have the same morals built in.