What's the logical question for ethics or morality that exists outside of religion?

Question

For those that believe there is no morality outside of religion, feel free to say that simply.

For those of us that believe that ethics or morality can exist outside of religion, what's the justification thereof? Obviously, society creates a series of rules and regulations that are intended to be towards its best interests. But what's the evidence that the best interests of society and humanity is something to be supported? "A better world is a good thing" doesn't require religion, until you realize you have to define what a good thing is; doesn't that defeat some of the nihlism?

Certainly, morality doesn't require GOD or a hell or anything, but at some point we have to define that we have values. Is there an objective way to define values that benefit society, or is it merely majority opinion (much like religion)?

Ugh. I should have proofread this.

Logical BASIS for ethics or morality. I should go to bed.

An interesting point made just now is that of the conscience. There conscience can be described either by religion (though I include metaphysics and certain branches of psychology in religion here) or as the experiences a person has obtained.

If we describe the human's superego as being transcendent of science and experience, that certainly simplifies things. But at that point, you start to describe "Well, the Superego is like this because of X and Y"

Big Pappa, what do you think I am? I'm one of those "professional arguers" or rather I would be if I could be paid for it. But even my tenacity falls somewhere.

I base my thoughts of morality (so to speak) on effeciency, which is essentially what you just described. But if we assume that human suffering, horrible pain, and alover failure to meet with human desire is not necessarily a bad thing (because that would be in a sense a moral judgement in and of itself), then how can we come to the conclusion that effeciency is a thing to be followed?

Answer 1

If morality is going to exist outside of religion, it will be based on certain cultural values graved into stone

Goethe wanted to find the best in German Literature so that all the different german people from their prospective areas under different princeships would be united and would have a common bond to connect the germanic kingdoms into one german people.

A government where the people don't share core values that unite them as people is a weak one.

Fortunatly for us we have the US constitution, which most americans atheists or otherwise treat like the ten commandments. The government can promote this morality through the pledge of allegiance and curriculim in schools, such as social studies course

Answer 2

I think fear of physical pain, emotional pain, being watched by others (which happens to us all no matter what we think), knowing that life ends at death - all these things contribute to the morals of an athiest.

You don't need a religion to see how you and your fellow man are in many ways one and the same. Compassion is a basic human drive - it doesn't require religion. Having a vision for a nuclear war-free future or a non-Apocalyptic future doesn't require religion. Loving someone doesn't require religion.

The notion that athiests are immoral is reapeated so often because the idea works as a prophylatic against further thinking. The implication, of course is that religious people are moral - which is a pretty dubious claim when you take history into account.

Answer 3

I prefer existentialism which suggest a commitment to existence. Ethics is not necessarily synonomous with morality, and religion has little or nothing to do with either. Belief and support in existence necessarily means that one will not live arbitrarily or contrary to that which promotes existence. For example: In some cultures it is socially, morally and religiously acceptable to believe in war and the creation of weapons of mass destruction. To an extentialist, that would be considered anti-social, immoral, unreligious and a threat to continued existence. So when speaking of ethics.... if it supports existence, it is a good thing. If it threatens the anihilation of person, a culture, a nation or a planet, it is a bad thing. No, it does not require belief in God or Hell or anything else to behave ethically... it requires rational thought. But if you listen to your evening news, it is obvious that human beings are not very rational.

Answer 4

Ok.... First of all yes ethics and morals come from everywhere. We get some pounded into our brain from parents, teachers, soceity as a whole. Yet, we also have the ability to CHOOSE which morals "fit" us. Everyone has a line that our conscience mind must choose whether or not to cross. There is a line for every choice and some people cross more lines than others

Answer 5

Personally, I believe it is found when we can find sympathy.
But this is not what it does for society. To answer your question, I would say that there can be a more stable system(especially for those in power) when people are given a set of beliefs. Ok, it can be fed with religion...this makes ppl think less and follow blindly so they are not damned or something. Otherwise we can look at another way to force "morality" by fear of going to jail by not following rules.

Answer 6

Wow - a lot of questions...and arguments within questions...not enough space and time.

Whether you believe ethics or morality can exist outside religion or not, one should already know his/her jusification thereof.

CULTURE comes first before ethics, morality, values or majority opinion.

Evidence to support best interest of society and humanity - COMMON GOOD. Again, after CULTURE.

Best to define good thing amongst humanity - GOLDEN RULE.

Culture and Religion can come one after the other, vise-versa or co-exist...deeply rooted since the beginning of time.

Effeceincy can independently be described as saving the time dimension - apart from virtue in "suffering" and fruits of sacrifice.

Oh well....I tried my best....need to go to bed (yawn)...

Answer 7

Is morality just a product of religion?
Are immoral people irreligious?

The two terms ethics & morality are used interchangeably! So, they usually can mean the same thing!! Technically speaking; morality is when we refer to moral standards and conduct whereas ethics is more of a general term or a study of those standards and conduct.... described as the "science of morality."

Religious people tend to think that morality is part of religion! But I think that morality is within our instinct! I believe that the terms moral and immoral depend on the time we live in and the culture we are used to..... meaning something that was moral many many years ago can be immoral today!!!! or even the other way around!!! Also what is moral in one part of the world can be immoral in other parts..... you know what I mean!

Answer 8

I like Kant's answer: right and wrong comes along with reason and the power to make choices; society has nothing to do with it at the most basic level. If I'm doing something for a reason that I couldn't take seriously if it were universal (stealing things to sell them, drinking for comfort, etc.), then I'm giving in to a merely physical process of cause and effect and treating that as my choice, and that's another way to say the action is wrong.

Answer 9

Read some stuff by the Plato and the other great philosophers. They make all kinds of arguement.

You can also make rules by trial and error or statistics.

For instance. Really safe sex only cost the government a little money. But slutty people make each other sick, and not just STDs, colds and stuff too. That is expensive. You have a basic morality problem...

and so forth...

Answer 10

Should we regress to the "before time" where primitive man knew little or nothing of the world around him, his explanations of the world and its machinations would be laughable to us, however, we still know so little of how the world operates (for instance, we grow old for no explicable reason) It would be pure arrogance to base the society's rules on logic when rulers of society have proven themselves not so logical. It's better to wonder about something ephemeral than to believe in a false morality.

For instance, lets say a lazy person ruled one society, and an angry person ruled another. The society in which the lazy person ruled would be full of neglects, and the society the angry person ruled would be full of violence. The people of either society would take their example from their "leaders" (until they got disgruntled, I suppose). They would come to identify these traits as desirable and even something to be proud of. Basically, because the mentality of people on a whole is to follow like sheep.

I guess my point is, you can't just believe that mores of society as we know it today just plonked down onto the surface of this planet. It took tens of thousands of years to develop. Interaction between individuals, between family groups, between communities, between "foriegners" all came about through more than just talk. It came about through bloodshed and regret just as well.