Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Replying to The Flaws in Defending Morality With Religion

Post Options

Enable emoticons?

Enter Your Name

[quote name='Genghis Flan' timestamp='1339800787' post='3451342'] [b] The Flaws in Defending Morality With Religion[/b] When we think of those opposed to homosexuality – which still sounds weird to me, like opposing left-handed people* – or stem-cell research or euthanasia, we tend conclude they’re justifying themselves because of religion. But, as with almost anything underpinned by religion, the pendulum swings both ways: religious people also support these. And, perhaps without energy or recognisable ability to justify their moral decisions, many often fall back on their god’s say-so to provide a foundation for their otherwise empty assertions that certain things are right or wrong. Of course, one tends to forget that this is true even of those who [i]support[/i] views one condones. By definition, justifying moral views because god says so is inherently flawed. I have not seen an escape from the problem begun with Plato's Euthyphro’s Dilemma, two millennia ago. After looking at the Dilemma, I'll highlight what I consider the fundamental problem with religious-based ethics. As Plato first portrayed it, [url="http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Rachels%20--%20Does%20Morality%20Depend%20on%20Religion.htm"]we have to ask with James Rachels[/url] a two-part question: “(1) Is conduct right because the gods command it, or (2) do the gods command it because it is right?” [b]“Conduct is moral because god says so”[/b] If (1) then conduct takes on the afterglow of being moral because of the gods’ wishes, rendering morality arbitrary. It is merely their blessing which “makes” it good, not the thing itself - which is not in-itself troubling, since, for example, utilitarianism operates the same way. Before something is good or bad, it is [i]a[/i]moral: rape, torturing babies, hugging bunnies, and so on could be made good [i]or[/i] bad. The difference between (1) and [i]other[/i] moral frameworks, like utilitarianism, is that what gives conduct moral currency is up to the gods’. This means the whims and wishes of beings who are not us, beyond us and our scrutiny, etc.: as Yahweh did in the Bible, this could render genocide, trophy-wives and so on, as moral [i]just because[/i] a god says so (or because powerful men tell us god says so). I know few people who would follow through with what they believe their god says all the time, as [url="http://bigthink.com/ideas/42385?page=all"]Adam Lee, at Daylight Atheism, pointed out with his Abraham Test[/url]. Furthermore, this makes ethics a useless subject since we need only consult the gods. Further still, of course, even if we believe all this to be true, religious people of the [i]same[/i] religion cannot even agree on moral matters: whether homosexuality is right or wrong, capital punishment, abortion in dire circumstances, etc. All this, too, is prefaced on the recognition that some kind of morally engaged deity exists. [b]“God commands it because it is right”[/b] If (2) then we must ask, simply, “[i]why[/i] is this conduct right?” Basically, we are repeating ourselves! If the gods are saying “helping others in need is good” because “helping others is in need is good” we’ve reached a tautology. “God commands a good action because it is a good action”. This doesn’t help us at all. We still want to know [i]why[/i] it is good. And, remember, if we say to this “Because god [i]says[/i] it is good”, we’re back to the problems pointed out in the previous section. It might also be an opportunity to say that the gods are useless, since if the action is right, why do we need the gods to recognise it? We are already using [i]another[/i] standard if we are proclaiming “helping others in need is [i]good[/i]”: what do we mean by good? This places us on proper ethical platforms to discuss our meanings of good. [b]"God Would Never Do Evil"[/b] One popular method to try and save face is to proclaim that my god would never do or will anything [i]other than[/i] good... Full: http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/the-flaws-in-defending-morality-with-religion?page=all [/quote]

or Cancel

Topic Summary

Guest

Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:50 PM

Guest, on 16 June 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Guest, on 16 June 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Any appeals to authority - religious or governmental - IS an immorality.
Anything coming from that is itself immoral and unethical.

Are you suggesting that hierarchy is bad?

If that hierarchy takes it upon itself to be the ones who delegate what is right, wrong, accep...

Guest

Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:31 PM

Guest, on 16 June 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Any appeals to authority - religious or governmental - IS an immorality.
Anything coming from that is itself immoral and unethical.

Are you suggesting that hierarchy is bad?

Guest

Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:26 PM

Any appeals to authority - religious or governmental - IS an immorality.
Anything coming from that is itself immoral and unethical.

Guest

Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:58 PM

God wants us to suffer. It's a fact!

Child Abuse Hiding Behind Religion

I came across a news story from one of the blogs I read regularly. The Friendly Atheist had linked to a story of a Pastor who had allegedly assaulted his child and the commenters on the story were not just coming to the Pastors defense but were one after the other saying how this fifteen year old should be beat for calling the police. I read the news story and the police report that was linked and I have to say aft...

Genghis Flan

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:53 PM

The Flaws in Defending Morality With Religion

When we think of those opposed to homosexuality – which still sounds weird to me, like opposing left-handed people* – or stem-cell research or euthanasia, we tend conclude they’re justifying themselves because of religion. But, as with almost anything underpinned by religion, the pendulum swings both ways: religious people also support these. And, perhaps without energy or recognisable ability to justify their moral decisions, many often fall back on their god’s say-so to provide a foundation for their otherwise empty assertions that certain things are right or wrong. Of course, one tends to forget that this is true even of those who support views one condones.
By definition, justifying moral views because god says so is inherently flawed. I have not seen an escape from the problem begun with Plato's Euthyphro’s Dilemma, two mil...

Review the complete topic (launches new window)