Role model in your community

[جوري]

Um obviously all civilizations have had 'some' deity playing a part. Now what is your point? Does this somehow make utilitarianism disappear? No, whether you like it or not there are ethical systems that operate without any reference to a deity. To put simply, if no one had ever heard of God you could still use the utilitarian calculus and determine, on that basis, whether something is immoral or moral.

'um' this topic wasn't about utilitarianism, it isn't even about the subject of ethics, however it evolved with the query of what your secular ethical systems is based on, and given that no atheist secular society has ever existed prior to a religious one we can safely conclude that ethics and morality has its basis in religion. Please I implore you not waste my time with whatever new philosophy you have conjured up to cement another non-point-- the distillate of this matter is so far off the original compound and I can't possibly entertain every byway you'd like me to get lost in!


have a great one!

 

[Lynx]

This:

and given that no atheist secular society has ever existed prior to a religious one

Does not entail this:

we can safely conclude that ethics and morality has its basis in religion.

Here's a better argument

Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.

Problem solved.

 

[GreyKode]

This:




Does not entail this:



Here's a better argument

Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.

Problem solved.

Does helping a disabled or an old person fit in the utilitarian model?

 

[Zafran]

This:




Does not entail this:



Here's a better argument

Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.

Problem solved.

It doesnt solve the problem as no society has actually taken Utilitarinism on unlike christainty for example. I dont think you yourself are actually saying that Utiltarianism is the way to go?

 

[Lynx]

Does helping a disabled or an old person fit in the utilitarian model?

I don't want to promote or defend the utilitarian philosohpy; the literature is vast and I have posted a link to a good source of info. I am only pointing out that a secular ethical system is possible without religious beliefs. This was in response to naidamar's initial post which seemed to indicate to think the morality of a non religious person is baseless.

It doesnt solve the problem as no society has actually taken Utilitarinism on unlike christainty for example. I dont think you yourself are actually saying that Utiltarianism is the way to go?

Well I'd argue that the western society has mostly taken a type of consequentalist philosophy as a basis but that's a whole new topic. You're right I am not saying utilitarianism is the way to go; I am not saying it's better or worse than religious morality; I am just saying smart people have been able to think up coherent moral systems without the use of a religious belief so it is not true that non religious people have no basis for morality .

 

[Ramadhan]

If Kant did not exist, his ethical system could still operate without religion so what you're asking is irrelevant.

That is conjecture.
the fact is Kant did exist, and he did write his own ethical system.
or did you mean that Kant's ethical system could have been written by someone deep in Papua 200 years ago?
What I asked is very relevant.

Don't look at the author of the system, look at the system itself; deontological kantian ethics works without a God telling people what's right and what's wrong.

This is not what I asked.

 

[Ramadhan]

Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.

How long has this utilitarianism been around?

has mankind existed only for the last 200 years?

 

[جوري]

has mankind existed only for the last 200 years?

He dodged or feigned not understanding the questions.. sometimes when you see evasion and threads hijacked to suit their personal agenda, it is better not to waste ones time. They come up with unrelated drivel out of a hat!

 

[Pygoscelis]

It isn't a moot point at all, to take something so incredible and deny its creation and absolute purpose..

Nobody (except maybe some religious?) denies empathy exists and came from somewhere. That doesn't mean we have to fall into the god of the gaps fallacy. Dawkins and his fellow scientists in this area have been looking into it within ours and across other species (it is not unique to humanity). From a gene's eye view their work and resulting theories make a lot of sense. Helping those who share a given gene will propagate that gene just as well as helping yourself, so from the gene's perscpective it makes sense to care for like beings. This has been examined in depth in those books I referenced. They may not have the complete answer yet, but at least they are looking instead of just saying "God did it".

I am familiar with Dawkins work

I very much doubt that.

 

[Pygoscelis]

well sorry to break it to you but the socities that kant, Jeremy Benthem and John Stuart Mill were part of - did believe or had heard of a God - regardless of there ideas religion still plays the bigger role in morality. Even when people talk about empathy they like to bring the Quote of christ or the golden rule.

Because it is a formulation of that moral that Christians will relate to, and Christians make up the bulk of our society. Makes sense. Jesus didn't invent the golden rule. He just adopted it, as many other humans had before him, and codified it into his religion. This is not abnormal. And it doesn't in any way mean that religion created the moral.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't want to promote or defend the utilitarian philosohpy; the literature is vast and I have posted a link to a good source of info. I am only pointing out that a secular ethical system is possible without religious beliefs. This was in response to naidamar's initial post which seemed to indicate to think the morality of a non religious person is baseless.



Well I'd argue that the western society has mostly taken a type of consequentalist philosophy as a basis but that's a whole new topic. You're right I am not saying utilitarianism is the way to go; I am not saying it's better or worse than religious morality; I am just saying smart people have been able to think up coherent moral systems without the use of a religious belief so it is not true that non religious people have no basis for morality .

As I noted above (to which of course nobody responded), if religion was the sole basis of morality you would expect religious believers to be more moral than atheists. You would expect atheists to be more apt to murder, steal, rape, etc. You would expect the prisons to be overflowing with atheists. Yet this is not the case. There is no strong correlation. There isn't even a weak correlation (atheists are actually slightly under represented in prison). That should speak volumes. We all clearly have empathy, regardless of whether we choose to dress it up in religion or not. Well except for sociopaths, but they are just as likely to dress up their own views in religion as not (ie, claiming god told them to kill etc)

 

[truth finder]

Recently this thread has been too much sidetracked from the original post and I want to have it got back.

The major point of the first post is unconditional forgiveness rather than helping lepers and the poor. As many readers may still remember from the first post, the Christian man in our home country lost two innocent sons by a communist rebel. But he not only forgave this heatless man for killing his two sons, but also adopted this man as his own son. Deeply touched and moved by this selfless love of forgiveness, the heart of this man was changed dramatically and he decided to live as a messenger of love and forgiveness for others. His cold heart full of hatred for those who do not share the same ideology (communism) was turned to the warm heart of unconditional love and forgiveness for other human beings.

Forgiveness is one of the best indicators of maturity in our relationship with God. People are touched and moved more by such loving acts shown to other human beings than the religious performances such as memorizing the whole scripture and a long period of prayer and fast. Again I am not saying that only Christians have such forgiveness. You are very welcome to share with other readers such unconditional forgiveness in the recent history of your community.

 

[Pygoscelis]

truth finder, it would be interesting to see if there was a positive or negative correlation between religious belief and forgiveness. In the Christian context, though Jesus is said to help us find forgiveness for our sins, the only way to do that is to kneel before him and enslave ourselves to his father (God). And then once you go to hell in the Christian dogma, there is no possibility of foregivness. So an earnest atheist who does not believe and then goes to hell has no path to "redemption" (which implies he did something wrong, which he clearly did not if he was genuine). And then you have the doctrine of original sin wherein we are all ****ed for something we didn't even do and need "forgiveness" for it. That seems more extortion of souls than genuine forgiveness. Then you had the church selling indulgences. And you have confession and the idea of God forgiving you for something you did to a fellow human being.

If a Christian slashes my tires and then prays for forgiveness from God, that doesn't buy me new tires.

Perhaps it should also be explored whether or not forgiveness is always a good or rational thing. It may not be if the person is just going to re-offend.

It is good to see a person forgiving another and trying to help them out of their bad ways, but as you said that isn't uniquely christian, or uniquely religious for that matter. It is just basic human kindness. The good samaritan Jesus spoke of and all that.

And if all we're talking about is various nice people around the world.... I don't see how that belongs in a comparative religion forum.

 

[Lynx]

That is conjecture.
the fact is Kant did exist, and he did write his own ethical system.
or did you mean that Kant's ethical system could have been written by someone deep in Papua 200 years ago?
What I asked is very relevant.

This is not what I asked.

How long has this utilitarianism been around?

Okay, let me ask you this, in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief? If your only response is that the creators of these systems lived in religious societies so therefore their beliefs are based on religious morals then you must be a pagan since all the prophets mentioned in the Quran came out of pagan societies.

 

[جوري]

They may not have the complete answer yet, but at least they are looking instead of just saying "God did it".

look into what exactly? those who knows science and how science works theoretical or otherwise can't accept a philosophical response to a specific scientific query simply because you don't like the default response. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other what you believe, worship or do with your life- you could donate yourself an anatomical gift to hopkins for all I care. Genuinely I mean that, but don't come with fatuous drivel and ask us to take it as a 'good enough' alternative because you deemed God to fill the gaps. Best you say you simply don't know than offer a half-baked response hoping those less schooled would be lost in awe and amazement of this drivel.

come back when you can weave a cohesive thought on life and form.. break down anything a fly wing even to its basic component re-anneal it by means available to you and breathe life and FORM into it and then come back to have this conversation with me again!

I very much doubt that.

what you doubt can fill compendiums-- it makes me wonder where you get your bravado from.. must be the ignorant guide to living
all the best

 

[جوري]

As I noted above (to which of course nobody responded), if religion was the sole basis of morality you would expect religious believers to be more moral than atheists. You would expect atheists to be more apt to murder, steal, rape, etc. You would expect the prisons to be overflowing with atheists. Yet this is not the case. There is no strong correlation. There isn't even a weak correlation (atheists are actually slightly under represented in prison). That should speak volumes. We all clearly have empathy, regardless of whether we choose to dress it up in religion or not. Well except for sociopaths, but they are just as likely to dress up their own views in religion as not (ie, claiming god told them to kill etc)

you took a head count of those incarcerated to learn of their beliefs at the very moment they raped, murdered. stole and tortured?
atheists don't bother themselves with petty crimes, when they can do it a la mode of Lenin, xedong, saloth sar, enver Hoxha and the gang!

where do you come up with this stuff? you are so funny!

 

[Zafran]

Because it is a formulation of that moral that Christians will relate to, and Christians make up the bulk of our society. Makes sense. Jesus didn't invent the golden rule. He just adopted it, as many other humans had before him, and codified it into his religion. This is not abnormal. And it doesn't in any way mean that religion created the moral.

I dont Know a single religion that doesnt have the golden rule part of it. Ofcourse I disagree you with where the golden rule actually came from. Jesus pbuh didnt make up the Golden rule it was there before him - but any western secular society always quotes christ in explaining the golden rule.

 

[Ramadhan]

Okay, let me ask you this, in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief? If your only response is that the creators of these systems lived in religious societies so therefore their beliefs are based on religious morals then you must be a pagan since all the prophets mentioned in the Quran came out of pagan societies.

You forgot one crucial thing:
The prophets (pbut) received codes of morals and guidance directly from God.

Meanwhile, let me ask you again:
Would it have been possible that Kant's ethical system written up by a local somewhere in deep Papua 200 years ago?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Actually the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you) is incomplete. What if I happened to be a massachist? Would that mean I should inflict pain on others? What if I really like pork chops? Should I cook some for you muslim folks? And maybe some beef burgers for our Hindu Friends? Doesn't quite work that Golden Rule thing. We need the platinum rule instead - do unto others as they'd like to be done, or something like that.

 

[Zafran]

Actually the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you) is incomplete. What if I happened to be a massachist? Would that mean I should inflict pain on others? What if I really like pork chops? Should I cook some for you muslim folks? And maybe some beef burgers for our Hindu Friends? Doesn't quite work that Golden Rule thing. We need the platinum rule instead - do unto others as they'd like to be done, or something like that.

Its always been in a religous context - Jesus pbuh being Jew I dont think he'll be too happy with your subjective ideas - your right it is incomplete thats why religion has always been part of the golden rule - Something moral for you like eating Pork chops or beef burgers clearly is not moral for the majority of the world - you may enjoy rape, killing people as well - for atheist as you have shown it is preety much an open game.