[ARCHIVED THREAD] - True Morality Is Based On Reason (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/2/2008 8:55:35 AM EDT
|
Three things occured to me earlier today. 1) True morality is not arbitrary, it is based on reason. 2) Some morals can become obsolete due to advances in technology or culture. 3) Christianity allows for greater flexibility and advancement because of it's views of morality. Discuss. |
Glad to see you thought through your post. Excellent points on both counts. My statement in number two was more based off of the abandonment of seemingly arbitrary morals. Pork is a sin. Uncircumcised people are immoral. Both were once based in reason (disease/cleanliness) but both are now overturned by modern technology. |
Absolutely correct.
If they were to go obsolete under any circumstances, I would argue that they are customs, laws, or traditions rather than morals. Morals would be the underlying truths that result in the adoption said customs, laws, or traditions.
Greater flexibility than, for example, Islam - yes. But any religion based on supernatural concepts will still be tied down by its foundations in belief rather than thought, and unable to truly reach a morality based on reason. For a real reason-based morality, you need a nonreligious system such as objectivism.
...No. All religions are based on faith, else they are not religions. Christianity is no exception; its central tenets are based on the revealed word of god, commandments from a supernatural source, backed up by the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell. This is not by any definition a basis in human reason. |
The underlying moral is that you should love your fellow human beings as you love yourself. One way to love your fellow human beings would be to take sensible action to reduce the spread of disease. |
I'm gonna argue with you! 
For #2 and #3, see #1. |
You're a self-proclaimed postmodernist, right? Why argue with someone? If there is no absolute truth, why argue something? |
Please read the beginning of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Its really a good book, written by a good author. Its not a childrens book, and its not a work of fiction. The beginning of this book deals with this exact discussion. I believe you live in my state, i'd be more than happy to provide you with a free copy, no strings attached. |
I don't need to type anything out. You did it for me. Bravo. |
This. Morality is a social contract which people use to get along in civilized society. As such, it is a thin veneer. |
I'm somewhat biased, but I see Deism as the natural end product of Christianity. Reason and logic, devoid of legend. Still faith based, as it assumes a Creator. |
Which is exactly why I define myself as Deistic Agnostic... or Agnostic Deist... hell, I dunno the correct order. There's something else... I just don't know what it is and think that anyone who claims to have it figured out is delusional. |
Think about this: Is it that those particular actions are themselves immoral, or are they just reflections of an underlying morality which shapes the actions of the given time? See Kylaer_'s post above. I agree that true morality is absolute and unchanging. What is regarded as "morality" in common practice is generally a reflection by society of an interpretation or implementation of a moral code. In keeping with your quoted examples, the underlying issue could be that taking care of oneself and keeping your body in good physical health is moral. Therefore, depending on the exact composition of society and technology, the actually manifestations of what actions are deemed "moral" and "immoral" can differ, while the underlying precept is held constant. |
I hate to refer to my member title but - I believe that people's behavior is only morally permissible because of the control of society. If you take civilization away, man is only as loyal to the system as his options. The only thing that separates man from behaving like animals (amorally) is civilization. Examine any absence of civilization or order and people who would normally behave morally permissibly do things like rape children and kill in cold blood. If all of us can turn into animals based on circumstances (Because we are human), "ethical" morality is a farce. |
|
If morals were universal we wouldn't have serial killers and characters like Hitler. Morals seem universal because genes that promoted killing each other and raping our babies were eliminated very early on in our evolutionary development. It was the clans with 'morals' that were able to band together and survive better than the selfish loners. |
Because I am exercising my mouth. I currently have nothing better to do than argue with someone anonymously over the internet. It entertains me. |
So you are saying that "civilized" morality is nothing more than a survival mechanism? I agree... 
|
This assumes that ALL of us can, in fact, turn into animals. A limited few live according to an inherent morality and they are the ones who create the system of enforced morality that keep the "animals" in line. If your above statement is true, we would still be animals. |
Whether you are religious or not, I think you have to accept this. Faith is both the most difficult step for a man to make, and the thing that makes religion what it is. |
Cristianity is faith based on reason. The Puritans broke it down as follows: Imformation, Assent & Faith. Christianity is Faith and Assent based on Factual Information. Faith in 'faulty information' isn't faith at all, it's mere superstition. |
If morality is a human survival mechanism - and those extreme circumstances are not present - do you think that it would allow those in power to exercise their system of ethics until the next extreme circumstance occurred? (Such as widespread destruction or disaster) |
Ok. Postmodernism holds that there is no absolute truth. That in and of itself is an absolute truth. Why hold on to a belief set so flawed? |
+1 Kylaer has it. |
I've read "Mere Christianity" and the logic throughout the entire book is just sloppy metaphors. "Well of course if we look for the carpenter in the house he built we won't find him, he's separate and external from it!" Oh but ignore the fact that God is constantly interacting with us answering prayers and performing miracles (but only small ones that can't be used to replace your faith). Oh yeah and he manifested himself as Jesus and came to earth for a while. The only 'proof' he uses to support universal morality installed by a creator is that there seems to be universal morality - how else could it get there? |
Uh, no. The existence of an absolute morality does not preclude the existence of immoral individuals, or prevent the occurance of immoral actions. In fact, without immorality there can be no morality. Without evil, what is "good"? Both sides must exist in order for either to have any meaning. If you can just see white and not black, then how do you know that what you are looking at really is white? |
Aquinas, Augustine and hundreds of other EARLY church theologians would strongly diasgaree. Many of these men where both Christian and students of Greek philosophy. In fact nearly all early Church theology was strongly influenced by Greek thought, and even the New Testament itslef is completely awash in Greek reason. Some of the early Patristic period fathers are known to have quoted Greek philosophers on thier death beds. What you are saying is completely incorrect. |
And having faith does not preclude someone from following a rational morality. You can believe in whatever god or gods you so choose; it is only if you attempt to use your faith (rather than your reason) to determine morality that you stray from rationality. I suspect most, if not all, religions would frown on their members doing such a thing, but I suppose it would still be possible.
I must disagree. Christianity is not based on reason; it is based on the revealed word of god. The "information" itself requires faith to accept; without faith, the very assertion that there is an all-powerful god whose commandments we must obey falls flat on its face. |
|
"In morally strong and morally weak men we praise the reason that guides them and the rational element of the soul, because it exhorts them to follow the right path and to do what is best. Yet we see in them also another natural strain different from the rational, which fights and resists the guidance of reason. ... the impulses of morally weak persons turn them in the direction opposite to that in which reason leads them." ~Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1 Chapter 13 That's all I've got so far. ~BakerMike |
Only a Christian would think that way. To non-Christians, the Bible is just another book full of fairy tales laced with actual history that was written initially as an attempted explanation of our origins and to make us feel better about our inevitable death... which is then alternately used to keep people under control with the threat of eternal damnation. Most religions can be defined the same way. |
Only if you argue logically.
I want to believe that anything is possible. |
Actually damnation is a much later construct of catholicism, not early Christians. |
Human beings are creatures of habit and naturally prefer order to chaos. Once a particular system of ethics is introduced, the majority will abide by it, regardless the circumstances. Clearly there will always be dissenters, but they are the minority. |
My point is that most every religion is eventually altered to include some sort of punishment for disbelievers. It's practically the only way to keep most people in line and believing your particular fairy tale. "Believe in my god and follow his rules!" "What's going to happen if I don't?" "Um... well... uh... nothing I guess." "Heh... I'll stick with my own rules, thanks." |
Interesting post, Dr. |
They applied the trappings of reason but they never chipped away at the foundations. That came much later. |
Yes it does. If morality was universal then everyone would have the same set of morals.
Without evil good would be the de facto norm. We wouldn't call it good because there would be no alternative, it would just be normal.
You wouldn't that's the whole point. To use your example lets say we're all programmed with universal morality. We all have the same 'white' morality. But then Charles Manson rolls along and does morally 'black' things. The only reason we can make the distinction between moral and amoral things is because different people have different ideas of what 'white' / moral actions are and we interpret those actions into our own understanding as black or grey. |
|
Morality is certainly based on reason. Not the reasoning of man though, but rather the reasoning of God which is beyond human understanding. Man can only partly understand God's reasoning and that is where faith becomes of immense value. For example, man's morality would allow for one to think or do things in private that would still go against God's morality. |
Wrong. There is no morality stemming from god. There is a system of morality developed by men, which they then claim was handed down by god to give their system merit. If we're going to say morality comes from god... then which god are we talking about? If it's Allah, then apparently we can kill people for not believing our set of morals and it's completely justified by god. |