So in the 'Under God = Bullshit' thread we got into a nice conversation. One poster wrote:
'Can a society define it's ethics without some association to some religion? - Nope, I don't think so.'
I think that is an awesome place to start because, as I'm sure you can guess, I disagree. I think a large amount of people gather their ethics and morals from religion but I don't think it is required to follow a religion in order to be ethical.
Before I get into why, we need to define what we are going to call religion. Obviously anything that is inspired by some intellegent greater power that told some dude to write a book is a religion. But what about some of the middle eastern philosophies? Like Taoism or Buddhism. Budda was some fat guy that sat under a tree and came up with a way to look at the world. He was hardly devine. And Taoism is a philosphy that developed over a LONG time from stories and observations. I wouldn't consider either a religion in their pure form (although some people have taken them and turned them into a religion, dorks).
So taking Taoism, someone who has read about Taoism and believes it is a pretty spiffy way to look at the world and follows its tenents would have a common set of ethics that other Taoists have, but it wouldn't be from a religion, right?
I tell you that so I can ask you this, what about atheists? Some of these people are almost militaristic in their non-belief, yet they have ethics and morals...I don't see a group of crazy atheists running around killing people because they wroke up with a sore tooth or something.
I think ethics and morals are a learned behavior and are reinforced by society. Sure, if the family you grew up in is a religious family and if the society you hang with is mostly religious you can make the arguement that your ethics were religiously based. But I think you can also learn ethics and morals if you group up in an athiestic family and an athiestic society. Afterall, religion developed as nothing more than a codifed set of what the hell made sense back in the day to control the masses...social control. Whether you believe it devinely inspired or not, in the end that is what it boils down to.
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here's my two cents:
I think that being an American can be like being part of a religion. It is a group of people who share common beliefs, ethics, morals and a way of organization. At this point, I don't know that I find it particularly important whether this country was based on Christianity. There are a lot of overlapping themes: don't kill anyone, don't steal, treat others nicely, etc. But people with many different backgrounds and religions can live as Americans without abandoning their beleifs. It brings me back to those certain "inalienable rights" that our forefathers mentioned. As human beings we have rights, and can live in a society with ethics and morals that respect these rights. Historically you may not be able to seperate religion and government. But to talk about ethics and morals is to talk about from where people draw their guidance. For many it is a prescribed religion, for others it is something more abstract, a sense of rightness versus wrongness.
Hmm, just some thoughts.
You set me up for this, didn't you Ryan?
Well said Bunny.
>> think a large amount of people gather their ethics and morals from religion but I don't think it is required to follow a religion in order to be ethical.
I don't think a status of "follower" is required either. It's more of a question of origin. Why do people believe what they believe - NOT in regards to faith, but ethics. Where all ethics came from in part is like which came first, the chicken or the egg. In searching for the origin societal or personal ethics, the influence of religion ( transcribed by a dude on behalf of a heavenly power or fat guy under a tree) is not deniable.
Is Taoism a religion? Webster defines religion as " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" In this tenet, I think yes, Taoism can be referred to as a religion.
Atheists can have ethics, but I do not think that they can dismiss that the ethics that were taught to them find some of their origins in someone's faith - be that their great x5 grandparents or the neighbor down the street. They have just chosen NOT to believe in.... something. I'd feel better letting an atheist discuss their prespective.
Some people think God is external, some believe internal, and some feel not at all. Ok. However, the religions of time HAVE sculpted parts of today's social ethics ( whether in the US or Asia) and the people in those societies relfect that, whether of faith or not.
But, as you stated, all have LEARNED their ethics. Where from? That in part may be a big problem.
Couldn't it be argued is that many of the issues societies face is the lack of acknowledgement or blatant rebellion against society's ethics? Or is it the lack of awareness of the social ethics already in place?
I believe the problem comes with relative moralism. You know - - "This is bad, except when..... This is wrong, except when........." The problem isn't people using judgement and free will. Even those of the Christian faith believe that all were given the ability of thought and free will. The problem comes for those who are unwilling to accept consequences for things that are WRONG and therefore justify all actions. Give me a situation and I believe I can show you how that is true.
But there ARE some absolutes. That does not mean that there is no need for judgement, but some things are really are wrong and some things are right. I have found that religious or non religious folk or can justify any thing or action via any means if they are clever or intelligent enough. But many cannot just accept and admit what they did was wrong. It's not religion that's the problem, it's how scrupulous the individuals are.
Taking life is wrong. Does that make killing in self defence wrong? Yes, but the need driving the act may override the "wrongness", but the act it is still wrong. Therefore the choice to kill must be done deliberately and with full comprehension that it is wrong and must have consequences. Some just view it as a quick fix.
Is stealing wrong? Yes. Why? In essence, it is dishonesty and many times, merely self serving. Is stealing from a store in the aftermath of a hurricane in order to clothe a family in need wrong? Yes. But the intent or action to recify the act may make it right i.e. leaving contact information to reconile the debt.
Yeah, there are so many grey areas, but welcome to life. If all were simply black and white things would definately be much simpler. Better? Probably not.
Religions affects on society are too great to deny, but I agree, one does not have to be religious to be ethical. But the group "ethical" does not always include group "religious" either.
Ugh !!!! What's on TV?
> At 12:22 PM, Bunny said...
>
> Here's my two cents:
> I think that being an American can be
> like being part of a religion. It is a
> group of people who share common beliefs,
> ethics, morals and a way of organization.
I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between being an American and following a religion. With religion comes faith. In order to follow a religion, one must accept the tenants of that religion on faith. On the other hand, our government is predicated on the notion that we question it every single day and change it if it does not work for us. It is, in fact, our obligation as citizens to do so.
> At this point, I don't know that I find it
> particularly important whether this
> country was based on Christianity.
I think Ryan's point is that some people are asserting this as fact. He doesn't necessarilly think that it's important but they certainly do. When you're debating someone and he/she attempts to assert an opinion as fact (especially if that opinion is used as the basis for her entire argument) one has to call her bluf.
Post a Comment