Philosophical Question...

[Morty]

This section of the forum strikes me as far too stagnant, so I thought I'd humor us all with a question my Dad once asked me:

If it were not for religious texts such as the Bible, would it be possible for human beings do have morals; to be able to tell right from wrong?

Think about the question before you answer.

[oceanflower]

I suppose one would have to start with the questions: "Is man innately good, or innately evil?" "What separates man from other animals?" "Does man have a soul?" "Is man's moral behavior dependent on religious texts, or are religious texts a reflection of man's innate connection with God (or "The Universal Spirit," or whatever name one prefers to use)?

I believe that what separates man fron other animals is his conscience, the ability to decide between right and wrong. Humans are taught right from wrong by their parents and society, and many people learn these distictions through religious belief. I believe that man has a spirit or soul, and therefore is always searching for a spiritual connection, ultimately to God. Religious texts are reflections of this search, written by those who believe they have found what they have been seeking.

[Morty]

I very much agree with your comment of man having a conscience, as opposed to animals. You can relate that too what Mark Twain said: "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to".

I suppose I speak for many of us when I say that it is our conscience, our ability differ between what is good and what is evil, that inhabits us when we do something that opposes that nature. History as well plays its part in this question.

[Moonlight]

I believe it's completely possible. I mean ancient cultures were writing laws before the bible was written. Obviously, laws are created from the basic morals of society.

[eflo]

This is a great question for me to ponder while I'm at work! I've just now gotten out of bed, and I don't have the 'fuel' to generate an answer to your question. I'll have to work my way up. Stay tuned...

[Pitseleh]

I suppose that depends if you believe that man wrote his religous text or if they were divinely inspired. I don't need a Bible or Talmud to tell me that murder is wrong, but then we are ultimately back to the question of man being inherently good, aren't we, oceanflower?

[oceanflower]

I suppose that depends if you believe that man wrote his religous text or if they were divinely inspired. I don't need a Bible or Talmud to tell me that murder is wrong, but then we are ultimately back to the question of man being inherently good, aren't we, oceanflower?

Yes. Is man inherently good? Would we "know" murder is wrong if no one taught us, either through religious teachings or through cultural, societal teachings?

[mazarane]

I suppose that depends if you believe that man wrote his religous text or if they were divinely inspired. I don't need a Bible or Talmud to tell me that murder is wrong, but then we are ultimately back to the question of man being inherently good, aren't we, oceanflower?

Yes. Is man inherently good? Would we "know" murder is wrong if no one taught us, either through religious teachings or through cultural, societal teachings?

I don't believe we would. But I think such concepts can be developed or evolve by a society independently of religion- I certainly don't believe religion to be essential for morality*. Of course, for a study of our current morals it is essential, as it is an integral component of our culture.
*And that goes even one or more of the religious texts are divinely inspired, which I'm not ruling out :wink:

[kp]

I think it all depends with the type of society you grow up in. Its obvious that some cultures have been able to come up with laws and show they differ right from wrong. But then there are the cultures like the cannibal tribes of new ghinea (not sure how its spelled), or the ones that hunt heads, which havent. Or did our culture evolve an unecessary taboo towards eating human meat? :?

[skye]

If it were not for religious texts such as the Bible, would it be possible for human beings do have morals; to be able to tell right from wrong?



I think people always invent some kind of rules. You don't need religious texts to know what's right or wrong. You don't even need texts - or do you think that people didn't have any right/wrong limitations before they invented writing? I think it's natural for a group of people to come up with rules which determine what is acceptable or not. Some people take those rules more seriously and some don't - so maybe you could say that some people are more inclined to morality than other. I think that learning how to behave in an acceptable way has a big impact on development of your morals as a child.

[Timothy]

Religion is just "a seed in bloom", planted in a soil named "morals". Humans can tell right from wrong without religion? That's quite possible. Law and Religion aren't quite different from each other. They both condemn, they both save... they both have rules and they both have warnings. A society without religion can be perfectly aware about "right" and "wrong".

But it's my opinion (and the opinion of millions of persons too) that there isn't such a thing as "Right" or as "Wrong" (with capital letters). There is no "Good" and "Evil". Instead, there is "good" and "evil", but they both differ depending on the place you're standing. What catholic religion considers "a good action" can be perfectly "a wrong action" in another religion. If both "Good" and "Evil" existed, there wouldn't be so many religions. The would all be the same thing and the world would be a nice, calm pond. And we all know that the world isn't such a thing.

I strongly recomend a book named "Genealogy of Moral" by Nietzsche.[/quote]

[oceanflower]

Religion is just "a seed in bloom", planted in a soil named "morals". Humans can tell right from wrong without religion? That's quite possible. Law and Religion aren't quite different from each other. They both condemn, they both save... they both have rules and they both have warnings. A society without religion can be perfectly aware about "right" and "wrong".

But it's my opinion (and the opinion of millions of persons too) that there isn't such a thing as "Right" or as "Wrong" (with capital letters). There is no "Good" and "Evil". Instead, there is "good" and "evil", but they both differ depending on the place you're standing. What catholic religion considers "a good action" can be perfectly "a wrong action" in another religion. If both "Good" and "Evil" existed, there wouldn't be so many religions. The would all be the same thing and the world would be a nice, calm pond. And we all know that the world isn't such a thing.

I strongly recomend a book named "Genealogy of Moral" by Nietzsche.[/quote]


The discussion about the existence of good and evil can be pursued in another thread...in fact theres already one on that topic named "You May As Well Believe in God."

[Timothy]

The discussion about the existence of good and evil can be pursued in another thread...in fact theres already one on that topic named "You May As Well Believe in God."[/quote]

Well, i wasn't trying to dispute about the existence of good and evil... you may as well replace them for "right" and "wrong" in my last post. And, if you ask me, there is good and evil, as long as humans remain alive. If they all die, then morals die, not to mention religion.

But you're right, that is another topic (but a really close topic to this one)

[incka]

I think there has been scientific experiements on this, but I have no idea about the outcome.

I would expact that society makes morals, infact there is evidence in that children who spend a lot of times with responsible adults usually grow up more socially responsible than ones who grow up with less responsible adults.

As for religion being a part of it, my proof is I've never being religious, but I don't go around stealing, why, because I can see the consequences. Religious people often have morals to avoid an afterlife fate, just as a lot of non religious people have morals just to avoid prison - And you'd be surprised at how many people only have morals to avoid prision, a person asked me to copy some software for him, I said no, and told him that if he wants to steal the software illegally and immorally he should go to a shop and physically take a copy of it. He said that was stupid as he would be arrested. This is a person who is always very mature, being very politically minded.

I'm actually agreeing with Mrs Thatcher who said 'There is no such thing as society'. And I'm very scared of my acceptance of that.

[Timothy]

My point is that morals aren't the product of religion, neither of law. They come from somewhere else: from humans! It is my belief that humans are moral beings because that is their nature.
As incka said: humans can tell the consequences of their actions. They don't need some religion or sacred book to tell them what is right and what is wrong.

And to explain why humans are moral beings is to ask a totally different question, worthy of a new forum only for itself.

[incka]

Some animals can see the consequences of their actions too, if you've had a dog you'll know what I'm talking about. It's not uniquely human.

[Timothy]

Well, yes. But I didn't said that it was a exclusive feature of humans.

[Anonymous]

sigmund frued believed that the concious decision-making mind consists of three components, id ego and superego. id being the "animal" physiological drive for survival and pleasure, and superego the rules of right and wrong imposed by society on the mind. ego is the rationalist, the "referee" between the two...

yes i think that religious texts, laws and etc. hav affedted the mind's perception of right and wrong, but i don't think humans could have advanced to this point without these types of media, and without advancing to this point humans wouldn't have a conscious knowledge of right and wrong. i don't think people would be able to reach the point of the understanding of right and wrong without these test, laws etc. because society wouldn't have been able to advance to that point of conscious qithout them.

[Echo]

Good to see people view things from different angles.

Quote from someone's: Two people can look at the same thng but see differnt completely.

As to my opinion, just my comments only. I think the moral is really just human's nature, animals has that too. It has nothing to do with the religious, but religion belief will make people even to devote themselves more.

We all have a fine nature, but thru the way been brought up, everyone experienced different turbulance, some can stay on the course, some just loses the track, simply everyone wants to become stronger or more secure.

A lot of people may not seem to have the interest in religious issues, but they are all behave very well, some people addicted to religious issues but you dont feel that they have love or care about the world.

To me, to be able to learn is realy wonderful. There are so many kinds of people, and we know We are not too wise compare to all. There's so much to learn learn in the world,
and afterall we will all doest matter what kind of the path you are on, or how successful that is, it's leading to a final destination of death. Would that be better If we believe in there is a new life begining after death? We will have ways to proof it after we reach the end. or if not, we got nothing too loose.

I like the examples on using the computer, everyone has different needs, they might be happy with window 98 or they may not be satisfied even loaded super XP.

I appologize if I said things not properly, I guess that I'm little bit too excited, I was so happy to find this forum, and being able to share some of the message. Did not have time to think too much on this topic, if I said something wrong, please forgive me, I 'm new comer to this forum community, I will come back sometime to review and edit it.

Thank you all very much!

[Mads]

I think human beings would have morals without such writings, yes, but at the same time
it's important to have such writings, the bible and others, to be able to intellectualize your
feelings, give them thought and reason - only life can teach you these things but as you go
along, writings and all teachings in general are excellent for "fine tuning".

[Sisyphis]

Morals are creations based around desires. To that extent, morality becomes an issue of taste and a fight to the death (unless you find it a little tacky).

[Morty]

I agree, yet morals should also be a determiner of desires.

[Sisyphis]

Yes certainly, that is the next step. Understanding that you are partaking in the previous two steps must precede it, however.

[Morty]

It's decidedly so.

[Io.]

Voltaire once wrote, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

I think if the Bible didn't exist a book of ethical morality would be written anyway, but the Christian Holy Book is by no means the be all and end all.

Io.

[mattlad22]

well since i beleive god was teaching humans of laws and certian ways in which they are to follow before man was even capable of writing them in to a book.

Also since i beleive there was religious laws before there where human laws.
I'd have to say that man would for the most part be wild and not abiding by laws in which we have today.
Here is why i think a mankind would not be as lawful if the religious law was not brought to us...FEAR OF GOD.

God might not be feared as much today.. but in the old days back a thousand years.. people were deathly afraid of god, some where just a lil scared and yes thier was people that just didnt care either way.. god or not..but what im trying to say is if their wasnt even just a little bit of fear in all of us of doing the wrong thing and bieng punished by god or someone else in power then wouldnt u run amock?? I think i would if i had no fear.. id just run around and bag people or maybe even beat them to death or chop off thier heads.. but since i live in the world of today (and thank god) i dont do those things.. and i wouldnt do them..ever....never ever..never...why cause im afraid of the judgement i would recieve from god... and for other people it might be the judgement from the governement of the fear of what people would think or multiple reasons... but like i said earlier..thier are some people out there that just dont care either way so thank god for both religious laws and human laws.

[musi]

the monkey tribes had early formations of morality, mostly based on sexual restrictions - no mating with sisters-brothers and so on. the tribes that did not have these restrictions, did not even invent a wheel...

the moral is not necessarily written, as Bible, some tribes can write little, but they still decide what is right and what is wrong from their point of view...

[blp]

I'm actually agreeing with Mrs Thatcher who said 'There is no such thing as society'. And I'm very scared of my acceptance of that.

Perhaps the difference between you and Thatcher is that it scares you. This could be a topic for another thread and I'm tempted to start it. But this idea of society seems relevant here in that, to some extent, it's obviously not true that there's no such thing.

We may not have a society based on altruism or generosity, but we do have societies that protect us and limit us in various ways. The question, as it pertains to this thread, is whether the morals of these societies are completely constructed and synthetic, systems based solely on practicality; or are they derived from something inate to the human character? Would we need laws and moral codes if we were inately moral?

It seems likely that some kindness could be inate. People fight for debt relief in Africa or donate to tsunami funds anonymously. Can anyone here say they have never felt any desire to be kind? I'd like to hear about it. Little children, as well as occasionally being monstrous, are often exceptionally kind purely for its own sake.

Perhaps the occasional monstrousness of children is a clue. Perhaps at the point where a child realises s/he is not only kind, but sometimes cruel, there is a fear that sets in and this is the beginning of morality - the recognition of a need for guidance, in order to remain, Edenically, kind.

[dumptruckrabbit]

im with Timothy on this one. with Nietzche.
morals are the rules one uses to live succesfully within a society, thereby sacrificing some of your personal liberties (for example, i didnt punch the bus driver in the face today despite feeling very much inclined to do so) in order to gain the protection and reproductive opportunities of communal living. they are essentially based on deception, of others and of your self, you play the part in the society that you are supposed to play( i gave the bus driver money and he continued with his life unaware of my desire to punch him) and internalise its rules, which vary across cultures because they develop organically over time and are not based on an undercurrent of inate divine knowlede that an enlightened person taps into. so an immoral person is one who goes against these rules, doesnt play the game. this can be because theyre just socially retarded and dont know how to live in society, but it may be because they are particularly astute people, who act as abberations in the status quo that eventually lead to overall change to said status quo. this is why great people are often burned as immoral heretics, because they disrupt the moral code. perhaps this is because they are the first to see the irrelevance of that moral code for survival at that time.

[dumptruckrabbit]

in response to blp's accolades for the innate goodness of man i would suggest people donate money anonymously because it feels good.

[DARKanima]

the rules/guidelines illustrated by the bible and other religious texts weren't anything new, this social mores and norms were already in act before a someone decided to make their little religion. so, i do not think law would be much different without religious texts, in fact to degree i believe certain religious guidelines were strongly enforced because they were modeled directly after law as a way of having more control over the people. if you think this idea is completely absurd look at the inquisitions, they were carried out for the sole purpose of unified religion for unified power.

[oceanflower]

the rules/guidelines illustrated by the bible and other religious texts weren't anything new, this social mores and norms were already in act before a someone decided to make their little religion. so, i do not think law would be much different without religious texts, in fact to degree i believe certain religious guidelines were strongly enforced because they were modeled directly after law as a way of having more control over the people. if you think this idea is completely absurd look at the inquisitions, they were carried out for the sole purpose of unified religion for unified power.

The Inquisition is an example of a time in history when wrong things were done in the name of God, but you cannot generalize thousands of years of religious beliefs and practice by one historical event.