I found God on the corner of First and Amistad where the west was all but won

[stillskies]

So, I have a question. It's one that I've asked and have been asked, and it's something that people have different views on.

Is morality dependent upon religion, or is it independent?There is a forum that I've been participating in this past week, and I'm finding that many people seem to think that it is, in fact, something that you need religion

Comments

[chrysa]

Is morality dependent upon religion, or is it independent?

I don't think morality is dependent upon religion, but even if it were, it don't necessarily make statement 2 true as well (anyone who doesn't subscribe to your religious ideals is immoral.) That assumes the question asks if morality is dependent upon specifically one religion - the religion of the debater - but that doesn't have to be true if the debater believes that someone with practicing any religion has a moral code that only exists within religion, regardless of what that is.

Take something more debatable: homosexuality. Is it moral or immoral? The Bible says that it is immoral.

The Bible also says that it is forbidden to shave and eat shrimp; that if your daughter disobeys you, you should stone her or sell her into slavery; that slavery isn't immoral. That, I think, is more a case of of people having selecting reading problems

[stillskies]

I think the problem is that the two definitions sound remarkably alike - even in my ethics class, the two were used interchangeably by the professor.

As for morality and religion, it seems to be that people seem to think in those terms. If you're religious, you're moral. If you're not religious, you're immoral. While I understand that not everyone is like this, when it comes up in debate, that always seems to be the catch-all stance.

And I agree with the selective reading problems when it comes to the Bible - I've come across it many times myself.

Thanks for answering~!

[athenazandrite]

Morality can exist without Religion and with it. Religion is just a convenient package for morality that is often abused to suit less moral purposes

[stillskies]

It's not so much an attempt to change as it is a desire for them to actually listen to a side that is different from theirs.

I agree that morality can exist with or without religion. It's kind of like the phrase 'all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.'

Most Christians don't want to hear that the Bible that they currently read and study was picked book by book by a mortal. They seem to feel safe thinking that it is directly from God.

Thanks for replying!

[athenazandrite]

I've found the best way to get someone to listen to a different opinion on homosexuality is for someone they know and care about to come out. I live in a really conservative area so I grew up around a lot of people who were force fed opinions by their parents. If you talked to them young enough, or were a close enough friend they might listen but the older they got, or the less well they knew you, the less likely they were to listen.

[stillskies]

True. I just don't understand how, in a supposedly open dialog, people are too damned caught up in themselves to actually listen to someone else. It happens with every debate I engage in for the most part, regardless of the subject.

True enough, I guess.

[thephoenixboy]

I'm inclined to say there is a universal moral code, though I'm not a good enough philosopher to argue it properly. The fact that there are things, across all countries and all nations, that people agree are wrong helps me lean that way.

A thought: if the Nazis has won WWII, would everyone have come to think that the killing of the Jews and other groups was justified? Or would there still be people, born a generation later, who would have a gut instinct that it was wrong, whatever they were being taught.

Another interesting question is why do we seem to have a moral code if it doesn't come from God (or whatever deity you happen to believe in), on the basis that it probably wouldn't be beneficial for it to survive natural selection.

[stillskies]

I think that the universal moral code is along the lines of 'treat others as you would have them treat you.' It seems to be very straight forward.

Unfortunately, not all issues that people deem 'moral quandaries' are simple.

That is a good question. I'm not sure. I really do think that there is an innate sense of good and wrong. The example that you gave of WWII, I think, is a good example of this.

Thank you for answering~!

[foxtrick]

ok, my take

[stillskies]

That's what I think, as well, but it seems that people are so caught up in what a dusty old book says - one that they pick and choose what to believe from - than actual decency and good will.

I... didn't know most of the scientific explanations, but they all make sense, actually. I did know about King James, which I still find depressing.

Thanks for answering~!