a moral dilemma...?

Question

suppose two different people are confronted with a situation where they have the opportunity to rob another person of $500

person A: this person is an atheist, however, being a person of human compassion, he is unable to rob the person in question because he knows that it would result in that person being rendered homeless, and unable to feed his children and family.

person B: this person believes in a god and believes in following the rules that his god has laid down, but isn't a particularly compassionate person. he decides to rob the person of 500$ for two reasons: the person doesn't share his faith, and he therefore cares even less for this person, and because he knows that his god will understand and that if he prays enough god will forgive him.

these positions are interchangeable, and in fact will change from person to person. the point of this question is to question whether or not a belief system can actually make a person more or less moral given the circumstances and the person.

where is it written that one must intend to be "moral" to actually be moral?

people do not intend harm and accidentally cause it, but are still held accountable for their actions

Answer 1

While I am going to agree that great evil is often conducted under the name of good (or God, for that matter), I think the example of robbing someone is a bit petty. $500? I don't believe I have ever met a genuine "theist" that would flat out rob a person. Now, if it were during a holy crusade? Thats a different context... So to make the point via example seems a bit too crass.

So back to the intended question: can a belief system make a person more / less moral? Its not quite that straightforward... Let me make a weaker claim: that a belief system can HEAVILY influence a persons morality.

Think of the ramifications of the following belief systems:

Consider a strictly materialistic and selfish belief system. The only thing that matters is personal material wealth and consumption. That person is going to do anything in their power to acquire the object of their greed, because their belief system doesn't place any value in the well-being of others.

Now consider something like Mahayana Buddhism. The ideal goal of a Mahayana Buddhist is to become a bodhisattva. To become a bodhisattva, one must make the following vow and take it very seriously: "I vow to endure endless cycles of death and rebirth until all sentient beings have been freed from their suffering." Obviously, someone who takes such a vow seriously is going to act with much greater compassion and represent a higher ethical and moral standard than our selfish materialist.

The problem is not, and never was, the belief system alone. The problem was always more in the way that people interpret their belief systems. Some systems are easier to misinterpret and so they are misused to justify immoral and unethical conduct.

So I would conclude that a moral belief system is necessary but not sufficient for moral conduct. Even the atheist has a belief system -- perhaps he is a humanist that believes human compassion is the highest ideal. Regardless if he believes in a God or not, he is still going to have some sort of a belief system to assign value and meaning to various things. And if his belief / value system does not assign much meaning to the wellfare of others, he will certainly not be moved to act morally.

Answer 2

Your scenario is slightly vague.. I'll answer the actual question you posed in the additional comment..

A belief system can and may influence or establish a person's morality.. both can be very closely connected and both can change dramatically over the course of a person's life and experiences. The very phrase "belief system" denotes the possible presence of a set of rules or laws, and for many people with belief systems these laws shape their moral code of conduct.
However, humans will always be humans and any belief system or moral code can be thrown out the window in the "right" circumstances..
There are three things that will influence a person's behavior;
basic human instincts,
innate emotional tendencies,
learned or conditioned codes of conduct.

In extremely difficult circumstances, most people will probably revert to behavior that satisfies basic human needs, whether or not they have a belief system.

Your scenario assumes that person B's belief system has rules that command followers to behave in a compassionate manner, but person B chooses to ignore that.. now here you didn't clarify if person B's belief system denies compassion to other people with different beliefs, but your last sentence implies that it doesn't and yet person B chose to ignore those rules.

According to this scenario It seems that it's Not person B's belief system itself that dictated his behavior or made him less moral. It's pretty clear what person B's morality was in the first place... the kind of morality that makes him manipulate laws and rules for his own benefit, regardless of which belief system he adheres to.

Answer 3

It is who they are, not what they do.

I believe that if a person is capable of hurting and robbing another individual, and acts on that, then it is who they are.
It is not about faith or religious convictions.

I find it very bothersome these days that people use religions and the so called unconditional love of god to justify doing things that harm others, in any way. I used to think that it was ok to do the wrong thing just because that forgiveness was always there......BEEP!.....Wrong Answer!

I now know that i am the one who must be accountable for my own actions, and my own decisions, regardless of how i choose to justify them. There are consequenses for everything....this we must not forget. And it really has nothing to do with whatever faith you claim, lest you would not take part in hurtful or harmful actions that affect yourself or others.

just my humble pagan thoughts.

blessed be
)o(
Trinity

Answer 4

I would say that moral systems based on belief systems tend to be more complex and have extraneous rules associated with them. They also tend to be resistant to any changes. For example, clothing or fashion has little to do with morality but many religions and hence their believers will scream blood murder if too much skin is exposed. Contrast this will simple societies in warm climates, clothes are a tool or decoration and nudity is not remarkable.

I would say that in your "problem" the true "moral" is compassion/empathy and not hurting another member of your species. The "false" moral is that difference is equivalent to bad or permission to take advantage of; i.e. not a member of your "tribe" therefor permissible.

Answer 5

I see what you're getting at, but the resulting behavior has far less to do with a person's religious bent and much more to do with who they are as a person. There are plenty of scummy people who use their version of religous beliefs to justify their behavior. Doesn't make religion wrong, it just adds another facet of wrongness to the person's nature.

Answer 6

individually, the nurse in me might have first dealt with the old woman. whether, that is a job utility. i think of the corporate might p.c.. the guy who chosen to assist the perfect woman. Employers are searching for individuals who're keen to "grab the day!" i'm no longer asserting that's the main suitable or ethical factor, permit me make that crystal sparkling! Very exciting question!

Answer 7

I don't know of too many religions that assume that it is OK to treat other people badly just because they do not share your faith.

And your hypothetical "A" person is simply being good because he "feels" like being compassionate, not because of some abstract moral principle that over-rides his natural impulses, so person A isn't really being moral.