^ agree

There certainly could have been moral cavemen...

 

nope, don't need an intolerant, child molesting organization to have morality.

 

Morality does not require religion. Morality is based in religion as religion is the first form of government. Religon needs both morality and immorality in order to justify it's moral tenents.

Morality is a subjective term defining social structural limits.

 

religion is the root of all evil...(j/k)

but seriously, people do commit immoral acts in the name of whatever religion they choose to follow and firmly believe their acts are justified. it's as if they are brainwashed. fanatics cast people as evil if they do not follow their belief system.

i'm not deeply religious but i do use the teachings of buddha as guidelines in how i respond to people and events in my life. there are no set rights or wrongs in buddhism, nor is there a god. it has made me a more open minded person and has given me better insight in the morality of my actions and of others. but i was basically a good person before buddhism so the answer to morality requiring religion is no.

 

Morality has become a buzz word for a society who rewrites its very definition based on the changing values that people are willing to accept. Inevitably this way of qualifying morals will lead to greater immorality,not stronger morals.

 

Religion uses morality as a tool to impart control.

 

Morality is simply a code of ethics. Does one need to be religious to be ethical? I say no. Religion is the practices and belief systems of a society. Ethics are the things that keep people from engaging in certain behavior, given the chance. The fact that people commit unethical acts in the name of their religion merely means your ethics are different than theirs, not that all religion is foul, IMHO.

I can claim to act in the name of steve c, that doesn't make it so. It doesn't necessarily follow that steve c and his millions of followers agree with my actions, or support me in any way. I have used his name to futher my own ends, but in my belief system, it is all good, since my motives are pure. Whether my behavior was ethical depends on your viewpoint relative to me, not on your opinions of steve c. You don't have to adhere to the teachings of WireGuy to have differing ethical positions. In fact, people of the same religion can have different ethics, as religion is a coat people put on, not the cloth from which they were cut, so to speak.

People turn to religions to resolve ethical dilemmas not addressed by another societal factor (like a legal system)because traditional religions define a moral code, or set of ethics, that believers are asked to follow to ensure happiness. The Ten Commandments of Moses are a set of ethical guidelines that include religious aspects. The State Of California maintains a set of laws that could be seen as an ethical guide without religious aspects, if you are willing to believe speeding on an empty freeway is unethical.

The position that ethics requires religion implies that all people who aren't religious are inherently unethical, which is a personal viewpoint, not a universal truth. So one's personal ethics could require religion, while another's personal ethics does not. Universal agreement is not guaranteed, since we are talking about personal choices and values, not the sum of a math problem.

In other words, whether ethics requires religion is something people argue about when they don't understand the question. It is a personal decision, not something with a "right" answer for everyone.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KaiWang

 

Religion is not the only institution that defines good and bad. In this country our elected representatives decide what is right and what is wrong. Being "representatives" of our civilization, their determinations represent our collective, societal desire (in theory). Of course, there's no question that clerics and prophets have influenced the morals of societies.

I believe though, that humans are smart enough to figure out what propogates life, happiness and fulfillment. The only problem we have is controlling our selfish desires.

 

I think this whole question depends on where you are coming at the question from.

Morals are an acceptable standard of behaviour, so if you were to start from scratch so to speak, then you could build up an acceptable standard to which people should live and then there would be no need for religion to be involved in this at all.

However, we are not starting from scratch, we have hundreds of years of evolution of our moral codes, and these have ganerally been developed through religion, meaning that religion and morailty are mixed and the borders of the concepts of each are now very blurred.

Yes you can be considered to be moral, even if you don't follow a religion, but what is moral in the mind of one person may not be moral in the mind of another. This is generally down to the religion in which the person has been brought up (whether or not they believe or practice that religion).

This however leads us into a political discussion and gets the thread locked, so I won't go on further .....