Am I the only one who thinks that morals are defined by God, not your opinion?

Question

I mean, if enough other people agree that it is okay to break into your house and assault you, does that make it okay or moral?

Answer 1

No, I agree with you on that.

Answer 2

No you're not the only one, but you sure are wrong. That means that Japanese have no morals? Indians have no morals?

And how do you like these morals?
Exodus 11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.
11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Answer 3

I am of the opinion that more than anything morals are determined by a society and a culture. Yes, sometimes the religion dominates the society and that's where you would get that but a large group of people decide morals.

Answer 4

Morals
Principles of right conduct;
Standards of right and good in character and conduct;
Established sanctioned codes or acceptable notions of right and wrong

Moral values
Standards of what is right and good;
Customary rules and accepted standards of society

Morality
Conforming to standards of what is right and good.
cf. Ethics, which has to do with principles of right conduct expressed as a formal system or code (e.g., of a profession or business) and often of an idealistic quality.


Since morals and morality differ from generation to generation, and since people's belief in God is varied to say the least, it would be improper to justify a statement stating that morals are defined by God. Whose God would that be exactly?

I think perhaps looking into one's heart and mind, knowing what is right and wrong may well do us more justice in the long term, don't you?

I understand what you're saying; I just feel you are using an incorrect term with "morals" ...

Answer 5

I agree with David W & Spezlee.

Morals are different in different cultures & societies. Using God to define Morals is a Society is a Cultural or Society leaders effort to run an ordered Society. It differs from culture to culture. eg; you may think that it is immoral to be naked in public. But, many cultures. African, New Guinea & South American forest natives to name a few see nothing immoral about it. I might add here that there is less sexual crime in those societies.

Answer 6

You're certainly not the only one but unfortunately that makes you amoral.

To make moral judgments means to make 'distinctions between right and wrong behaviour according to conscience'. Christians, however (and other believers), readily admit that the behaviour which they advocate for themselves and others is a matter of simply following their god's orders. This is not morality, by any definition, and the more closely someone follows what they perceive to be the orders of their deity, the more amoral they are. Fundamentalists - biblical literalists, whatever the appropriate name is - are the least moral people of all, since by their own admission they seek to follow rigidly the orders as they see them, and eliminate any input from their conscience at all.

Furthermore, anyone who makes moral claims based on religious beliefs puts themselves at a severe disadvantage compared to someone whose morality is based on conscience, since the former are making claims of objective fact which have not been supported with objective evidence.

So for example if you say that homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to your god's will (which is the definition of 'sin') then this point of view is invalid unless and until you can prove the existence of your god, prove that what you claim about his will is an objective fact, and prove that your god's will is indeed the basis of morality. Since no logically satisfactory proof of these claims has been forthcoming, there is no valid reason to take any account of moral viewpoints based on such claims. Also, the moralist who bases his or her views on claims of objective truth has to accept that in the absence of proof, their moral views *could* be objectively false. Indeed, as shown above, such views cannot strictly be called moral at all, but amoral, since they are based on factual claims rather than being decided according to conscience.

Conversely, someone who says that homosexuality is morally right or wrong just because that's what their conscience tells them, without basing it on any claims of objective fact, has no burden of proof and is not logically compelled to accept that they could be objectively wrong. This is the only kind of position which a reasonable person should take into acount.

Answer 7

Whenever I see a question like this, I am appalled to be reminded that there are people out there who are so out of touch with their basic humanity, and reality, that they would not have any idea how to conduct themselves in society, absent the code of an imaginary supernatural being, based on the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant bunch of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat herders.

Cooperation, altruism and love are innate properties of human existence... a more sophisticated version of the social organization that you can see among pods of dolphins or orcas, packs of wolves, lion prides and troops of chimpanzees. Moral consensus, moral conscience and mutual empathy are evolved survival traits. These are social constructs... the social lubrication that allows people to exist together. People come away with the misconception that they don't exist, absent religion. The religious puppet masters try to perpetuate that idea, in order to protect their conduits to wealth and power... but that is a canard. This has to do, entirely, with human nature.

***********************
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg
***********************

Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil Part 2.1 (moral behavior)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mGLPViVW5ms

Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil Part 2.6 (evolution basis for morality)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mGLPViVW5ms&mode=related&search=

Answer 8

Morals are defined by people. Put any three people in a room for long enough and they'll come up with rules for dealing with each other.

Answer 9

What about the morals that were created by other deities (instead of your god). What about the consistency of basic morality by differing religions.


Also, if you look at various stories in the Bible, God appears to be inconsistent at times, just like humans.

Answer 10

Yes the morals are defined by God . But it is human kind that is interpetng what they mean.

Answer 11

I would definately say God set down a moral code that we are should follow. I would also say I do not know anyone personally that follows the code to the letter, much to God's dismay. All we can do is try to do our individual best and try to help each other out along the way.