Why not all?
Moral is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as an Adjective as:
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
NOUN:
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mrlis, from ms , mr-, custom; see m- 1 in Indo-European roots
OTHER FORMS:
moral·ly (Adverb)
SYNONYMS:
moral , ethical , virtuous , righteous
These adjectives mean in accord with right or good conduct. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct: "Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights" (Jimmy Carter). Ethical stresses idealistic standards of right and wrong: "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants" (Omar N. Bradley). Virtuous implies moral excellence and loftiness of character: "The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous" (Frederick Douglass). Righteous emphasizes moral uprightness; when it is applied to actions, reactions, or impulses, it often implies justifiable outrage: "He was . . . stirred by righteous wrath" (John Galsworthy).
Since each individual sets these standards for himself or accepts the standards of others, how is it related to religion unless you mean by :religion: any belief at all.
2007-12-15 15:49:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by cjkeysjr 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Judgment of what is good or bad is subjective unless there is a standard with which to judge behavior by. That's why it has never been up to individuals to set their own standards. That is also the reason each nation or civilization has developed laws and rules. Religious and societal rules and laws do not keep people from doing wrong. They only let you know what is proper or improper. It is painfully obvious there is a problem in this world we live in because it there is a complete lack of respect for the standards set up by men. Even you must admit that. How thick do law books have to become before they are effective? We can't create enough laws today to fix the problems we face. That's where God comes in. He basically set up 10 laws. Four of those are between us and him. Six of those are for man and all laws currently on the books on based on those six. They are suppose to be written on our hearts if we are Christians. That internal moral guide only comes through God. It doesn't take rocket science to see that man is inherently selfish. Selfishness and pride is the root of all crime, murder and evil you see today. Just because you don't beat people up or kill them, doesn't mean you are moral. I would trust a person more who is responsible to a moral standard enforced by a higher being than I would for those who hold themselves to their own moral standard.
2016-05-24 01:25:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I disagree with your premise. Christianity places God as the author of conscience as shaped through the Golden Rule. God is the moral authority behind conscience.
The rejection of a Creator leaves conscience as a mere set of feelings without any moral authority whatsoever. And what moral obligation do we owe to a set of feelings? None that I know of. Without God, our morality is to do what we feel like doing and then define our standards afterwards so that we always find that we fit our own standard.
2007-12-14 23:03:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Matthew T 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Morality is not necessarily based on religion. Some philosophers say that the nature of humans is to "do good and avoid evil." I think that it is "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." This is not a religious statement but an acknowledgment of the respect that is due us because of our humanity.
Morals are what you should do, mores (pronounced mor-es) are are generally accepted behaviors that are what people actually do and vary by culture.
2007-12-14 22:39:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Gerald G 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I find that Buddhism fits that bill. Of course there are the dictatorial sects but the general tone of buddhism is about how you relate to your inner self and to the world around you. It's about putting good things out there and seeing them come back to you. It is also non exclusive and you are not seen as a non believer if you also choose to believe the doctrines of other faiths.
I act according to my conscience, and with an awareness of karma.This is my understanding of it and the way it works for me anyway. We each have our own path in this world, no two will ever be the same.
2007-12-14 23:10:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Atheism. Not a religion, but it's the only thing I know of where people behave in accordance with their conscious and own moral code, without being told what to do.
2007-12-14 22:43:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Protestant Christians are the most 'Morally minded' without so much of the 'following rules'.
Atheism leaves NO room for morals, as there is no need for morals in an Atheist world.
you will find if you actually looked at it that most Protestants (that is Baptists, Anglicans, Uniting etc) believe what the bible says about living Gods way, it's not a bunch of rules, but the way God made us to live. It is somewhat more flexible that Catholics & Orthodox or Islam in that it doesn't have the confessing, and sacraments or the ritual prayers of Islam.
God tells us to 'follow him' and 'Love one another', and gives detailed guidelines on how to do this. All the supposed "rules" fit into these.
2007-12-14 22:27:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by L.J. 5
·
0⤊
4⤋
Green Wiccan here. Living by the "Harm None" rule because it's what I believe is right. You can be a moral person in any religion.
You asked the wrong question.
The question might run more like, "Which religion doesn't try to FORCE it's followers to be morally sound?"
2007-12-14 22:19:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by shatterbrat 3
·
4⤊
2⤋
In the Baha'i Faith, faith is seen as both conscious knowledge and the practice of goodly deeds (which I see as those that genuinely benefit humanity). After investigating several religions, this is the one that I find encourages true morality both collectively and on an individual basis through teachings on an upright character but more importantly and emphasis on serving others.
But discovering that was my own journey. I hope you find an answer that you find satisfying!
2007-12-14 22:16:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by mbot 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Morality is a choice. Of course you can be a moral Christian. It's what the religion is based on, although history has shown the practice of it has some problems. Are you honestly suggesting there are no moral Christians or Mulisms in the world? You sound bitter, and looking for self-justification. Btw, I am not Christian, just tollerant.
2007-12-14 22:19:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by Scottsays 4
·
0⤊
3⤋