Miburo

What do you mean, how?

Is it possible for men to agree on what a moral life is? Sure. People agree about shit all the time. 'What a moral life means' isn't a magical topic where someone will be incapable of ever agreeing with someone else. People are capable of agreeing on shit. This topic isn't excluded. Kind of a stupid question, really.

If you meant to ask if every single person on the planet will ever agree on a single definition of morality, then no. Probably not. Luckily, people don't have to unanimously agree on shit for shit to be logical. In fact, people all agreeing on anything doesn't seem too important in regards to much of anything. I'm sure there are people out there that still think the world is flat. I don't give a fuck if people agree about shit or not.

If you meant something else, than I dunno what it is. I'm just going with what you actually typed there. You're kinda just throwing shit out there all randomly and shit. Not sure what your angle is.

Vanity

I havent read all this shit yet. I'll delete this and start fresh if this has been stomped to death.

I'm far too exhausted to make a huge argument on other points, so first, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Basically, you're implying humans degrade morally without religion?

Well, on the basis of Christianity, since I'm not too far in to studying the Curan, I'm going to go ahead and say that's more than unless they're literally raised by animals, like some feral children. Even then, I'd be straining my own point.

According to the Christian faith God "imprinted" His law upon man. Even if they aren't "believers," or even influenced, there are things we supposedly want to follow by nature, regardless of conditioning. Based on that premise, man, even if he chose to rationalize other wants and desires, will always, at the very least, be plagued by his "conscience" and will know when there is a universal conduct code he's breaking.

For instance, even tribes with "uncivilized" people have underlying morals, though marred by some other cultural things. (Ya̧nomamö, for example, may be a lot of things but they have such a strong respect for their dead that a name is never to be reused or mentioned after their passing)

So, if I'm happening to make any sort of sense, even if man neglects God and religion, he's more than capable of living "morally."

__________________
My nerves are bad to-night.
Yes, bad.

Stay with me.

Speak to me.
Why do you never speak?

Speak.
What are you thinking of?

What thinking?
What?

I never know what you are thinking.

Think.

Law&Order

I am saying that how you define living a moral life will be different than how every other man on earth defines morality. Yeah, maybe from 5000ft away we will agree but once you get down to the minute details and situations we will disagree as to what is morally acceptable and what isn't. How do you define living a moral life? Did someone who lived 51% of their life being moral, live a moral life? The majority of his life was lived morally, was it not? Do you say there is no room for any immorality for someone to live a moral life? Where that even one instance of immorality keeps you from having lived that moral life. Where do you draw the line and the sand and say this is a moral life and this isn't? And who is to say they are right and who is wrong? Pre-marital sex is that moral and immoral? Logic says moral but their are millions of people in the world who will say its immoral. I am asking you how to determine what it means to lead a moral life and who is to say you are right or wrong? How can we even argue about being moral with or with out religion when we can't agree on the definition of what is moral or immoral?

__________________

Vanity

So, basically, on the plane of moral relativity, morals are impossible to argue.

However, on the basis of the initial point made by the thread creator, I believe we're talking about morals affiliated to a specific religion(s). You have to work from there.

For instance:
Let's say stealing without need is immoral.

K?

K.

A man that isn't religion can indeed, live this morally, because he can easily make the decision to not be a thief. Whether it be by some personal prerogative or because he knows he has no need to.

We can apply this to a lot of religious morals. Up to and including staying a virgin until marriage.



Again, correct me if I've taken an improper turn.

__________________
My nerves are bad to-night.
Yes, bad.

Stay with me.

Speak to me.
Why do you never speak?

Speak.
What are you thinking of?

What thinking?
What?

I never know what you are thinking.

Think.

Miburo

I've never heard this before. Just curious as to the source of this information.



And Law&Order, so when you asked this:You were really asking this:

?


How the hell was I suppose to know that, lololol?

But to answer your question, I determine what it means to live a moral life in relation to the topic of debate by going to dictionary.com and look up moral or morality, find the definition that applies to this particular context, then use that definition. So, basically a moral life is a life that is lead following principles or rules of right conduct. It doesn't matter what the rules actually are, and they don't have to be unanimously agreed upon. All that matters in regards to the topic of debate that a life is lead concerning the principles of right conduct.

This debate is basically a formal discussion based on allegations that those that aren't religious are not moral. If you're american, surely you've seen Christians on the internet or the tv say or imply that atheists are people that have no moral values. With a quick google search I'm sure I could find examples of this, if you like. This topic of debate is basically for people to argue either for or against those allegations.

If you want a specific moral system to be defined for some reason, then we could just pick any basic moral system presented in any religion and then ask if it's possible for someone to follow that moral system without believing in that religion. The answer would be still be yes. Defining a specific moral system isn't in any way required to debate the original topic of discussion though. Which is why I personally didn't do it. No need to get all pseudo-intellectual about shit by going on about "who is to say what being moral is? How do you know you're right or wrong? lol hurr." EDIT: Vanity gets it.

But yeah, that's how it's possible to debate being moral without religion, without agreeing on the definition of what is actually morally 'right and wrong.' If you want to discuss morality itself then I suppose I'm game for that. After you take your ritalin. =p

Law&Order

@ Miburo (&Vanity), I get the argument pertaining to the og question and I agree that a man can live a moral life without religion. I was going a bit deeper, yeah it is a bit of a step off the path that I have taken and am asking more to reason with someone than to try and argue points. I am having more of an argument in my head about morality than on this forum. The thing with morality that I have a problem with grasping is that there has to be an equation, a set of rules that I can apply to every situation to come up with right and wrong. This equation should hold true across the universe similar to E=MC^2, you may not believe it or understand it but it is a physical truth that every is affected by. I was raised Catholic so I base my religious knowledge off of my raising. Even following the Ten Commandments and additional teachings of the bible you will always come to a situation where two persons of catholic faith will have disagreements of the morality of a situation. That is why you elect a figure head to hold the final saying on what is right and wrong. This equation of morality will always be flawed and is like proclaiming that the world is flat when you know it isn't. But if no religion can define a set of rules to provide the basic equation for understanding morality then who can. Logic? Government? How can man come up with an equation of morality that will let every man prosper under his own ability, without hurting another man's chances of survival, while dealing with each other under a mutual agreement?

Don't confuse me with TrueUchiha as a ritalin junkie.

__________________

AndyJC

The premise of this debate is flawed. The question should not be “Is it possible to live a moral life without religion?” but “How can religious a person or society live a moral life despite their religion?” Religion is a hindrance to living a moral life; the only way to live a moral life is to be not religious and the only way for a society to be free and just is to have secular government. The argument is a follows:

Any 21st century western person if placed in society just say 50 years ago but certainly 200 or 400 years ago would be totally appalled at the prevailing moral standards. They would find almost everyone shockingly racist and sexist; they would be appalled at the treatment of the mentally ill, children, the poor and criminals. Today everyone regards slavery as immoral but not long ago it was a subject of debate.

So it is clear that what is regarded as acceptable behaviour (moral) develops and moves forward. However, there has been no change in the ancient religious texts such as the Bible, Torah and Koran which are the supposed source of religious morality. So the source of that developing morally is clearly not the religions.

This static nature of the source of religious morally and the developing morally in society means that good well meaning religious people constantly find themselves with the dilemma of living a moral life or following the teaching of their religion i.e. religion makes it difficult to live a moral life.

As an example, the Bible clearly states in Exodus 22:18, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. And for a while Christians took this seriously and set up courts to send witches to be burned at the stake. Society came to regard this as unjust and put a stop to it, it was the most pious Christians that were last to this realisation.

There are many passages on adultery but as example, Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." Religious people have had to be dragged along every step of the way to move away from stoning to death (usually women) to the present decriminalisation of adultery.

Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned. In fact there are many passages that give support to slavery such as Leviticus 25:44-46, “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you”. For most of the history of Christianity Christians, including Popes, have owned slaves. The most religious part of the USA was the place that most forcefully resisted its end. Society moved on but many Christians came along later.

At present, here in the UK, the current issue is homosexuality. Society has realised oppressing homosexuals is immoral but good Christians are struggling with their consciences as their Church once again demands adherence to an outdated bigoted stance. No doubt in a generation or two Christians will have caught up and the present attitudes will be regarded in the same way as Christian support of slavery 200 years ago is regarded now.

At a society level it is clear that freedoms enjoyed in western countries are due to the secular nature of our government. Under theocratic governments where the laws are determined by reference to religious morals then there was, is and always will be oppression and injustice. Modern Christian theocratic states are in short supply and the only examples are Islamic, but rest assured it there were modern Christian theocratic states they would have the same tendencies. So in Pakistan the punishment for changing religion is death; in Taliban Afghanistan girls weren’t even allowed to school; in Saudi Arabian women can’t drive or be seen in public without full covering of body, head and face and with the company of a male relative; and in Iran women are stoned to death for adultery (which often includes when they get raped). This is what happens when a society takes religion seriously and bases its law on the morals outlined in texts that are thousands of years old.

stubborn_d0nkey

One thing:

Fucked up morals are still morals

__________________
I am THE stubborn_d0nkey, thou shalt not have other stubborn donkeys before me.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

Quotes for noobs (learn how to break up a quote)

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJC The premise of this debate is flawed. The question should not be “Is it possible to live a moral life without religion?” but “How can religious a person or society live a moral life despite their religion?” Religion is a hindrance to living a moral life; the only way to live a moral life is to be not religious and the only way for a society to be free and just is to have secular government. The argument is a follows: Any 21st century western person if placed in society just say 50 years ago but certainly 200 or 400 years ago would be totally appalled at the prevailing moral standards. They would find almost everyone shockingly racist and sexist; they would be appalled at the treatment of the mentally ill, children, the poor and criminals. Today everyone regards slavery as immoral but not long ago it was a subject of debate. So it is clear that what is regarded as acceptable behaviour (moral) develops and moves forward. However, there has been no change in the ancient religious texts such as the Bible, Torah and Koran which are the supposed source of religious morality. So the source of that developing morally is clearly not the religions. This static nature of the source of religious morally and the developing morally in society means that good well meaning religious people constantly find themselves with the dilemma of living a moral life or following the teaching of their religion i.e. religion makes it difficult to live a moral life. As an example, the Bible clearly states in Exodus 22:18, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. And for a while Christians took this seriously and set up courts to send witches to be burned at the stake. Society came to regard this as unjust and put a stop to it, it was the most pious Christians that were last to this realisation. There are many passages on adultery but as example, Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." Religious people have had to be dragged along every step of the way to move away from stoning to death (usually women) to the present decriminalisation of adultery. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned. In fact there are many passages that give support to slavery such as Leviticus 25:44-46, “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you”. For most of the history of Christianity Christians, including Popes, have owned slaves. The most religious part of the USA was the place that most forcefully resisted its end. Society moved on but many Christians came along later. At present, here in the UK, the current issue is homosexuality. Society has realised oppressing homosexuals is immoral but good Christians are struggling with their consciences as their Church once again demands adherence to an outdated bigoted stance. No doubt in a generation or two Christians will have caught up and the present attitudes will be regarded in the same way as Christian support of slavery 200 years ago is regarded now. At a society level it is clear that freedoms enjoyed in western countries are due to the secular nature of our government. Under theocratic governments where the laws are determined by reference to religious morals then there was, is and always will be oppression and injustice. Modern Christian theocratic states are in short supply and the only examples are Islamic, but rest assured it there were modern Christian theocratic states they would have the same tendencies. So in Pakistan the punishment for changing religion is death; in Taliban Afghanistan girls weren’t even allowed to school; in Saudi Arabian women can’t drive or be seen in public without full covering of body, head and face and with the company of a male relative; and in Iran women are stoned to death for adultery (which often includes when they get raped). This is what happens when a society takes religion seriously and bases its law on the morals outlined in texts that are thousands of years old.

The core of your argument is flawed. In order for there to be argument about the nature of morality, we have to agree that morality is absolute. What you consider moral and what is actually moral, assuming morality is absolute, are not necessarily in agreement.

If morality is absolute, where do we get our morality? We can certainly not invent it if it is an absolute truth of the universe. If morality is not absolute, who is to say what is moral and what is not? You seem to be confused in your beliefs, claiming that morality has changed over the years, yet simultaneously claiming you know the absolute morality.

I think what you call appalling "moral standards" is actually a gross misunderstanding. It is not that people were not moral, because they treated other human beings with the same respect and fairness we do today. Instead, they believed that "human beings" were a group much smaller than we believe them to be today; they excluded those of other races, genders, ages and more from their definition.

Yes, those born with mental or physical handicaps have been unbelievably mistreated by people of the past; however, those people mistreating them did not believe they were doing anything wrong. Were they amoral, or did they just misunderstand the nature of humanity or of proper methods of treatment?

There are two ways we can think of being a "moral person." One is simply "doing what is believed to be right and just," the other is "doing what is right and just, in accordance with the absolute morality." Which one do you believe and why?



I don't believe the anti-religious part of your post is really worth addressing until I understand what it is you mean by "moral."

stubborn_d0nkey

^Practically what I said, but longer and more eloquent

__________________
I am THE stubborn_d0nkey, thou shalt not have other stubborn donkeys before me.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

Quotes for noobs (learn how to break up a quote)

ACt

@ AndyJC - the argument is not flawed. It is a simple question and by your point that "religion actually can hinder a moral life", which has actually already been made, you are answering yes to "can a man live morally without religion". What you proceeded to do was attack religion rather than make any valid points.

Still, Mal's question is a good one: what is morality? Do you feel there are absolutes we can deal with?

I don't. Morality is a shifting definition based on tradition, knowledge and stresses on a society. It has altered. History and genetics has shown us that skin colour does not make us any different as humans, so slavery, once deemed OK because dark skinned people were more beast than human, is no not moral. The issues you run into with religion is probably a denial of certain knowledge to continue with tradition. But in simple fact, they are working from different morals than you. Are you the one to say they are correct?

One example you brought up were disabled people. I ask you now, if the world continues to become overpopulated and resources start to grow thin, do you think the morality of treating disabled people as equals will continue? Is that moral sustainable?

RNB

The reason an absolute morality seems so distant from people is because the moralities that are present in our society are closely related to Kant's Categorical Imperative, where an action is good because it is good. Basically, religion hands you a code of rules and follow it. I know that people will try to debate on this, but every religion points out some mystical undefined evil and then goes about telling you what actions are evil. Some religions, like Christianity and others, will try to go about defining the evil, but it is still pretty ambiguous. People say that pride is the root of all evil, but some of apostle Paul's arguments end up arguing from a standpoint that pride is good.

So our society, after being influenced by religion, feels that the only true morality is some given code of rules. This is actually the exact opposite. A morality is complex hierarchy of rules based on one's hierarchy of values. If you want to find the essence of one's morality, you should look at their highest value since that is what the morality is trying to obtain.

If there is an absolute morality, then there must be an absolute value. To be honest, I really don't feel like debating that, but I am one that believes that there is an ultimate value in the universe, namely one's own happiness, which I already explained earlier in the thread as being the metaphysical good. for any human being. No one's morality will be completely identical, but the essence will be the same.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

AndyJC

The flaw I am suggesting is the premise that society gets its morality from religion, whereas the truth is that religion gets its morality from society. I described how religious teaching follows developments in civic society, religions are always behind secular society. This point does not require careful definition of morality, everyone in the US today 'knows' that slavery is wrong and that stoneing adulters to death is wrong. The thing is once these moral developments become clear religions have to go through a tortuous process of reinterpreting their ancient texts to accommodate these truths.

RNB

Religion doesn't just get its morality from society. Religion either gets its morality through subconscious choice or through a lottery pick. The commands which are chosen through subconscious choice (if we can even call it a choice) are based on what one picks up through subconscious observation, which can be observation of society or nature, or etc. Those which are chosen by lottery pick are done without any influence at all except for the accidental. Either way, all are just as valuable as buying a lottery ticket because if they do happen to be right it isn't like you actually knew they were right, consciously.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

ninjalostboy95

No, you're reading into the question too far. TrueUCHIHA wasn't talking about absolute morality because he doesn't even know about that. He meant morality as in what society perceives as moral. Basically if you can live a life that is moral according to society. Yes religion gained it's moralities from society but that's not the point. Absolute morality existed before society and religion. An individual has their own moral standards but may choose to follow society or not.

Religion gives it's followers a set of certain rules which are absolute in their eyes(Well not all followers, but still the point stands.) TU is very religious and believes everything that the bible says in terms of moral and he thinks they are absolute.

Yes it does. Not everyone thought slavery was wrong(I don't mean to sound fucked up but I'm just giving an example why you shouldn't say everyone.) People in Saudi arabia still cut off the hands of thiefs(That's why their crime rate is very low. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is one of the laws in the code of hammurabi, right?) Their moral standards and ways of punishment are different than ours. To the US, cutting off their hand is immoral but to Saudi arabia cutting off their hand is just so they won't do it again.

I disagree, if you look at the muslims, they have a sort of Bible(Forgot the name) that wasn't reinterpretted or changed to fit the morals of modern society. It stayed the way it was.