Top | Newest First | Oldest First
CopperCicada · M
Doing something because God said to is really the weakest form of morality in my mind. It's like not playing with matches because mom said so.
The only real substantial morality is one that understands the cause and effect of actions. Not just that actions have ethical consequences. But why. And I don't mean because God will be pissed off.
It's like not playing with matches because one knows that fire burns and that burns hurt. And one doesn't want others to hurt from burns. Or one doesn't play with matches because one knows fire can spread quickly and destroy things, and one doesn't want to destroy one's property or that of another. Or nature.
In my experience that first form of ethics, acting because God said so, or alternately, because some religious texts says so, is a dead end because it's driven by selfishness. Gaining God's favor, avoiding divine punishment.
It's also a dead end because understanding ethics as cause and effect, how our actions have ethical significance because of how they benefit or harm others-- really demands compassion and empathy.
I can pretty much tell where somebody is and if I'll be able to relate to them based on where they claim their values come from. Say that you don't rape because that makes God mad... versus that you don't rape because that would fuck up a person's life.
Legalistic morality doesn't support compassion. It also isn't pliant, flexible. There's no wisdom to it. Understanding cause and effect and the emotions that drive one's negativity does.
Which is another problem with legalistic God says morality. Unless we face the causal nature of actions and how our choices impact the world around us, and unless we understand how our emotions drive our negativity-- we'll always be looking for ways around the rules. And find them. Every time.
The only real substantial morality is one that understands the cause and effect of actions. Not just that actions have ethical consequences. But why. And I don't mean because God will be pissed off.
It's like not playing with matches because one knows that fire burns and that burns hurt. And one doesn't want others to hurt from burns. Or one doesn't play with matches because one knows fire can spread quickly and destroy things, and one doesn't want to destroy one's property or that of another. Or nature.
In my experience that first form of ethics, acting because God said so, or alternately, because some religious texts says so, is a dead end because it's driven by selfishness. Gaining God's favor, avoiding divine punishment.
It's also a dead end because understanding ethics as cause and effect, how our actions have ethical significance because of how they benefit or harm others-- really demands compassion and empathy.
I can pretty much tell where somebody is and if I'll be able to relate to them based on where they claim their values come from. Say that you don't rape because that makes God mad... versus that you don't rape because that would fuck up a person's life.
Legalistic morality doesn't support compassion. It also isn't pliant, flexible. There's no wisdom to it. Understanding cause and effect and the emotions that drive one's negativity does.
Which is another problem with legalistic God says morality. Unless we face the causal nature of actions and how our choices impact the world around us, and unless we understand how our emotions drive our negativity-- we'll always be looking for ways around the rules. And find them. Every time.
@CopperCicada
Yeah well said. I guess this drifts into the debate about whether theistic morality is superior or inferior to secular morality.
I agree that it's problematic to go the "because god said so" route. And you see it all the time when debating morality. Almost every time, some theist will ask some variation of "If there's no god then why don't you just rape and murder and steal".
Yeah well said. I guess this drifts into the debate about whether theistic morality is superior or inferior to secular morality.
I agree that it's problematic to go the "because god said so" route. And you see it all the time when debating morality. Almost every time, some theist will ask some variation of "If there's no god then why don't you just rape and murder and steal".
CopperCicada · M
@Pikachu I find the notion that it takes a metaphysical entity's proclamation to not fuck a child pretty terrifying. I mean, if God tells you not to touch the kids, and you don't-- rock it. But it means compassion really has nothing to do with it. That's incomprehensible to me.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
That's a good question, if anything it's the opposite, you can cherry pick how you personally see things and I would think that's not objective. AronRa points out some interesting linguistic fallacies that are associated with the 10 commandments for this reason. Though not exactly talking about subjective or objective morality, it's a very similar subject that leads to some problems with morality of religion as a whole.
[quote]Thou Shall not Steal
What if you're living in Egypt preparing for the Exodus and God tells you to borrow things you know you're not going to return because you're on a one way trip out of the country. Or worse, thou shall not steal unless you first plunder the village and the inhabitants, killing every man, woman and children except for the little girls. These virgins are the booty you get to keep for yourselves along with the livestock and everything else you stole from the neighbors.
Because if they're all dead, it's not really stealing?
Remember this is what God commanded his chosen people to do, even after he gave them these commandments.[/quote]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36g3auOm9HA]
[quote]Thou Shall not Steal
What if you're living in Egypt preparing for the Exodus and God tells you to borrow things you know you're not going to return because you're on a one way trip out of the country. Or worse, thou shall not steal unless you first plunder the village and the inhabitants, killing every man, woman and children except for the little girls. These virgins are the booty you get to keep for yourselves along with the livestock and everything else you stole from the neighbors.
Because if they're all dead, it's not really stealing?
Remember this is what God commanded his chosen people to do, even after he gave them these commandments.[/quote]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36g3auOm9HA]
View 2 more replies »
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Pikachu He behaves in the bible as if he has an end goal to accomplish. It's because I see the bible as more of a political book full of dog whistles than an actual handed down morality tale. There's lots of evidence for other agendas in the bible rather than having it be solely about morality.
If it was based on morality it would be more like [b]Aesop's Fables[/b] which generally doesn't have a single origin agenda to it nor does it demand you worship it.
If it was based on morality it would be more like [b]Aesop's Fables[/b] which generally doesn't have a single origin agenda to it nor does it demand you worship it.
Grateful4you · M
@Grateful4you
Well it's definitely my opinion that biblical morality is the work of men and not a god.
But for the purposes of this question, we're assuming that a god is real and has declared what is moral.
Well it's definitely my opinion that biblical morality is the work of men and not a god.
But for the purposes of this question, we're assuming that a god is real and has declared what is moral.
Grateful4you · M
No, just no...