Is Religious Morality Superior to Godless Morality:?

Question

Almost every theistic, religious system of morality is founded upon the premise that a god has created morality and has issued moral commands to humanity. Real morality, however, cannot be mere obedience. A truly moral choice cannot be dependent upon a desire to avoid punishment. Moreover, eternal punishment for temporal crimes, however awful, is itself immoral because it is so disproportionate. The death penalty for stealing an apple would be less unjust. If a person does things merely for a reward, their choice is based upon selfishness, not moral values. The absence of intellectual values that would encourage reasoning about our choices is consistent with the countervailing emphasis on obedience to authority.
As a matter of fact, it can be argued that many of the problems we face can be traced to an over-reliance on religious moral systems which seriously suffer from the above flaws

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

I don't know if I'd agree that many problems can be traced to an over-reliance on religious moral systems, but I'm not inclined to argue about it.

I'd say both are equal. To throw a little Machiavelli in, "the end justifies the means". I don't always agree w/that, but in this case I think it fits. As long as the morality is occurring (though it seems to not be in many cases), what does it matter where it is coming from? Unless morality is considered something bad, it should be okay. Now forced morality--that might be another matter. Morality needs to be a choice. Religion still offers people a choice of morality b/c they can choose one way or another, i.e. heaven or hell. Most people probably wouldnt want to go to hell, but everyone has the choice of acting in a way that may cause them to end up there. Forced morality would be civil/criminal laws that are enforced by a justice system or vigilantes, i.e. abortion laws.

Answer 3

Morality is what behavioral standards are best for the society of man and the continuation of mankind as a group. It does not deal with religion or the absence of religion. It is impossible to be selfish and at the same time to obey someone or something contrary to our own will and desires. If the reward system one that embraces- religious or not- encourages or exemplifies behavior that is detrimental to the social progress of mankind, then it is flawed. When man makes choices without regard for any system of conduct that assumes authority over and responsibility for man's destiny and creates his own rules, those rules tend to promote self-satisfaction over the good of all mankind. If an intellectual decision can, consistently, lead to universally, positive outcomes then a set of standards could be written and created to help the intellectually challenged to stay on the right moral path. However, obediance is merely, a short-cut to achieve the desirable outcomes for all mankind that some of us- even the intellectually gifted- already adhere to. It is called the Holy Bible.

Answer 4

Yes, you are correct, sort of. However, a religion person might say that they do not do good simply for fear of punishment or want for the reward. This will be difficult to get out of them. They will say that they do good because of the joy they feel in their hearts for having accepted Jesus or whatever. They know that God loves them so there is no problem with reward/punishment, they trust God to make the right decision, blah blah blah. The reward/punishment paradigm for religion is mainly the way the media portrays religion, but it's not actually how it works to someone who is a part of it.

A true moral choice must be situational -- that is the difference between moral codes and moral choices.

Answer 5

I guess I agree, though I am not sure I would have called it "Godless".
I am guessing you mean "morality that isn't dependent on God vs.
"morality that is based on God not existing."

Can anybody really say they are doing something altruistically if
they believe in heaven and hell?

Generally, "god-less morality" could be defined as a moral system
that defines "good" as being that which promotes humanity, the
individual and the environment.

"Bad" is that which is against humanity, individuals or the environment.

It doesn't require a system of retribution. It doesn't need a God to be
consistant. Nor is it predicated on God not existing. It simply does not
use God as part of the reasoning.

Answer 6

It is true that morality cannot be "mere" obedience.
But
One cannot have an idea of morality without an idea of "good".
And one cannot truly have an idea of "goodness" without having an idea of "The Transcendent Good", the "Absolute Good". What some might dub God. Because without the idea of God ones idea of good becomes completely arbitrary, "willy-nilly", if you will.

If goodness is based upon nothing but each individuals ideas and reasoning thereupon, then my morality is not your morality and we will have no common ground by which to judge right and wrong.

Universal morality is necessary if we live in a reasonable world. And some sort of universal "ground" is needed for us to have universal morality. This "ground" is often called God.

Answer 7

What standard can "godless morality" have? Atheists can't give an answer for why something is right and something else is wrong other than, "because that's what somebody thinks it should be." Perhaps they would have everybody go by his own opinion, in which case nobody could do anything wrong; perhaps they would go by the community opinion, in which case nobody could do anything wrong if enough people liked it.

Without God, by what standard can the atrocities of the Nazis be condemned?
It wasn't against the law of Germany. Whatever Hitler said was law.
It wasn't against the law of England. They weren't subject to that law.
It wasn't against community standards. The country agreed.

"Godless morality"? No such thing.

Answer 8

i think of the object became into very exciting. I never believed rats are undesirable as a results of fact they're rats, yet in simple terms that many carry affliction. a lot of human beings although, shop rats (lab rats) as pets even. yet even nevertheless the habit of the animal is exciting this incredibly does not have something to do with the word morality. Morality as defined interior the dictionary is: one million. conformity to the regulations of nicely suited habit; ethical or virtuous habit. 2. ethical high quality or character. 3. distinctive characteristic in sexual concerns; chastity. Nowhere does it state it potential social empathy meaning: one million. the psychological identity with or vicarious experiencing of the sentiments, ideas, or attitudes of yet another. whether you have been nicely suited how would this prepare rats are morally improved to non secular human beings? edit: OMG. If social empathy is the source of morality, then why does not the dictionary point out the words social empathy? And in the journey that the entire ingredient of this question is consistent with some strawman argument like non secular human beings frantically deny of their tries to refute evolution and insult nonbelievers, I say HUH? What the frick are you conversing approximately? Btw, i'd desire to make sparkling some thing with you. earlier i became right into a Christian and earlier I knew or known a concept in a God even, i became into VERY ethical. understanding the version between nicely suited and incorrect, and practiced it daily. I never lied and incredibly believed mendacity became into incorrect, so what say you presently?

Answer 9

True morality is something that is instinctual in my opinion.

Let's say you have a dog who is suffering terribly with eventually fatal injuries -- you shoot him to put him out of his misery, and that is the moral thing to do. Let's say you have a happy healthy dog who looks at you lovingly and wants to play fetch -- you shoot him just to watch his expression change, that is immoral.

Life is complex and so full of variables, that any system of morality that does not allow for complete situational ethics is totally incapable of producing moral adherents. That is why the fear mongering methods of absolute morality (religions) have produced more war, destruction, bloodshed, and heartache than is imaginable.

Answer 10

I completely agree! Religion in itself was a way to control the masses and not to justify anybody going to heaven or where ever you believe yourself to go. There has to be rules or chaos would ensue but you have to be moral with in your self in order to achieve utopia

Answer 11

How so very true
Only if you had said the same in simpler terms
Morality for fear of god is worse than immorality