Should morals and ethics be based on religion [especially in a secular society].

[Amorphos]

Should morals and ethics be based on religion [especially in a secular society].

Should any given ethic or moral have its own basis? I.e. other than a religious one.

should a modern secular society have self evident morals, not religious based ones?

[Maca]

Many social morals are the same (or at least are similar to) religious morals and vice versa, such as not to kill, steal etc.

[Amorphos]

Many social morals are the same (or at least are similar to) religious morals and vice versa, such as not to kill, steal etc.

Not to kill is self evident though, which is what I am saying here; a moral either stands up by itself or has no basis.

To say something is a 'sin' because a given book says so is different and non secular.

[MaximiIian]

It should be left to the individual. Whether a person wants to derive their personal ethics from a religion or not, is up to them.
Individual morality is individual.

Social "morals" are non-existent; rather what we have are social norms, which vary from society to society or culture to culture.
And that's perfectly okay.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

I don't think it's moral to say that you "You shall not kill" because it says so in a book. Morality should come from reason.

[Copperknickers II]

I don't think it's moral to say that you "You shall not kill" because it says so in a book. Morality should come from reason.

It should, in theory, but can you come up with a good reason why we shouldn't be able to kill other people? I have tried and failed.

Luckily, i am fine to believe that my morals came from religion even though i have now abandoned the rest of religion. They probably did, but i was brought up with them and they do noone any harm so i have no problems. In fact i look up to Jesus greatly, he was more than just the average schizophrenic high on biblentheogens that feel compelled to write a book, and more importantly he knew his people and cared for them, which is more than Buddha and Mohammed did and were.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

It should, in theory, but can you come up with a good reason why we shouldn't be able to kill other people? I have tried and failed.

If you're allowed to kill other people, other people are allowed to kill you. Self-preservation.

[Amorphos]

It should, in theory, but can you come up with a good reason why we shouldn't be able to kill other people? I have tried and failed

Because we don’t want it done to us?

At the very least for this and many things, we can apply the rule of no rules; if you want to kill someone then you give yourself the right to do so for some reason [he had sex with my sife, done this or that, usually there is a motive], so if we don’t apply any of our own rules it renders us ineffective in terms of crime.

i was brought up with them and they do noone any harm so i have no problems.

societal conditioning. > So there are no problems in the world based on religious difference?

You see religion groups morals into a set, you then have different sets according to denomination and religion. Without religion you have the same morals but without the sets. Equally you don’t have all the other tripe that goes with it, I don’t think it is right to put it all in one basket, this only justifies other aspects of religion and may indeed be a reason why many become religious.

In fact i look up to Jesus greatly, he was more than just the average schizophrenic high on biblentheogens that feel compelled to write a book, and more importantly he knew his people and cared for them, which is more than Buddha and Mohammed did and were.

Lets not get into religious one-upmanship please!

[Hun Birodalom]

From a secular perspective ethics provide the guidelines that members of a society must adhere to. This is relevant in the "western world" in the form of the law. Morality is handled in a completely different manner, as it is up to the individual to define his own personal moral standards. Religion can greatly influence and inspire individuals to formulate their moral standards but do not apply to everyone. I think this is the best way to differentiate between ethics and morality.

In other parts of the world, religion is the law, (more or less). As a result, ethics and morality are not addressed as the separate notions they are. The society is thus sustained by ideology with great bias and injustice.

[Amorphos]

It should be left to the individual. Whether a person wants to derive their personal ethics from a religion or not, is up to them.
Individual morality is individual.

Not entirely, given that your religion doesn’t say go blow yourself up for god [not that any do, but some people take it as such], then yes. If you don’t have universal standards above and beyond religion ~ especially where religion is inadequate or unclear in some way, then there will be conflicts.

Here we are mainly debating what our law and education is based on.

Social "morals" are non-existent; rather what we have are social norms, which vary from society to society or culture to culture.
And that's perfectly okay.

It is not, you have one way here and another there, so you live by one set here, then move or go on holiday and there is another set there. Is duplicity a good thing?

Morality should come from reason.

Absolutely! It is not enough to say I believe in ‘x’, they have no basis unless they can say why.

Morality is handled in a completely different manner

Indeed, so we are being provided with morals that may have no basis in truth, especially in the 21rst century and with ancient morals based on very different societies.

[Amorphos]

If the fact of considering everyone equal was not due to religion, cast in India would not exist.

Both caste and equality are primarily incorrect, we are not all equal nor can we be put into groups. However we are all human and have the same potential or at least must be given the right to better ourselves as such. Hence we are to all be treated the same. This is just logic based on what human beings are, rather than what Hinduism or Christianity says we are.

[skag]

Both caste and equality are primarily incorrect, we are not all equal nor can we be put into groups. However we are all human and have the same potential or at least must be given the right to better ourselves as such. Hence we are to all be treated the same. This is just logic based on what human beings are, rather than what Hinduism or Christianity says we are.

You don't really get what I tried to say. Maybe I expressed myself bad.

What I gave, is a simple proof that our moral and ethic derive from religion. Once more, if the valor of considering everyone equal (democracy, social system, education, healthcare, etc...) was a valor gave by our human reason and intellect, the cast in India would not exist.
If you extrapolate this example, if our religion would have tell us than killing and raping is good. Everyone would be killing and raping.

Another good example : ancient greeks and romans. Before christianity came, everyone was having sexual relation with everything. Childrens, family, animals, and it was normal.

Why now for us, all of this is considered very bad ?? Religion .... moral and ethic derived by our religion.

So, all you define as being a valor, principle, ethic etc, comes from religion.

And just to go deeper in the subject, why we send to prison pedophiles ?? and we consider them evil, and insane, with psichological problem ? Because of our religious background. Once more, before christianity came in Rome and Greece, it was normal ... You were not insane if you were having sexual relation with your 10 years old daughter. Now yes

[Taiji]

Everyone would be killing and raping.

Not all people are religious. Not every religious person bows unquestioning before a religious figure. Religions are not responsible for what people do. It's the other way around; people are responsible for what is done in the name of religion.

[Hun Birodalom]

Indeed, so we are being provided with morals that may have no basis in truth, especially in the 21rst century and with ancient morals based on very different societies.

I agree that the majority of people's perception of morality is highly questionable. Nevertheless, formulating and following one's morality must remain the individual's responsibility. I think it is quite clear that while I disagree with "mainstream morals", I still think that one should freely make up their moral "code".

[skag]

all our moral and ethic derive from religion.

Lot of people i met, who are against religion, tend to believe that it's not true. That the fact of not stealing/killing/etc is a "human" fact, and not a derivate of religion. They are completely false.

The best example i can give is the hindou one : the cast.
While in our monotheist religion, they always teached us : everyone is equal.

If the fact of considering everyone equal was a human fact, given by reason, cast in India would not exist.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

all our moral and ethic derive from religion.

Lot of people i met, who are against religion, tend to believe that it's not true. That the fact of not stealing/killing/etc is a "human" fact, and not a derivate of religion. They are completely false.

The best example i can give is the hindou one : the cast.
While in our monotheist religion, they always teached us : everyone is equal.

If the fact of considering everyone equal was a human fact, given by reason, cast in India would not exist.

As an atheist, I believe that religion was created by man, and not God. Therefore, the ethics in them has been created by man, and their ethics.

[Amorphos]

if our religion would have tell us than killing and raping is good. Everyone would be killing and raping.

no we know it is wrong anyway, that is why we accept the religious reasoning to begin with ~ and why it was made!

Why now for us, all of this is considered very bad ??

Sexual disease, animal and human welfare, this is an interesting issue, one of many that would be interesting to find a basis for beyond religion.

all you define as being a valor, principle, ethic etc, comes from religion.

partly yes, but i have to justify them philosophically. many religious morals come from elsewhere too!

And just to go deeper in the subject, why we send to prison pedophiles ?? and we consider them evil, and insane, with psichological problem ? Because of our religious background. Once more, before christianity came in Rome and Greece, it was normal ... You were not insane if you were having sexual relation with your 10 years old daughter. Now yes

True that the ethic derives from religion or at least the desire to be good [not sure if the bible specifically mentions age of consent], yet we say why incest is wrong. The age of consent is a societal issue, one that has a philosophical purpose e.g. if females get pregnant they deny themselves schooling, they don’t have the intellectual maturity to make such decisions. The men that have sex with them are also unethical for many reasons, they are inconsiderate and slaves to the minds processes for a start rather than being in control of them generally a lack of control is the laymans definition of insanity though I don’t think they should be called insane imho.

________

As an atheist, I believe that religion was created by man, and not God. Therefore, the ethics in the has been created by man, and their ethics.

Very good point. May I add that most ethics have been developed societally, just as etiquette and manners have.

___________

while I disagree with "mainstream morals", I still think that one should freely make up their moral "code".

Yet surely there must also be universal morals and standards. i can image many areas of conflict between the two, hmm which an area of interest.

[Hun Birodalom]

Yet surely there must also be universal morals and standards. i can image many areas of conflict between the two, hmm which an area of interest.

Morals are of a much higher "caste" than ethics. Some describe morals as the heavenly law. Rules that are indisputable and are not constricted by any boundaries as they apply on earth as well as in the heavenly kingdom. The very nature of heavenly law is that it must not be enforced upon anyone. All is free to rise and fall but with great and terrible consequences. One must possess a great depth of knowledge to understand morality and distinguish between the false sense of morality that so often manifests itself in religious extremism as well as total disregard of true morality. Conflict between freedom of choice and the wrong that some commit to is inescapable. Informing others of this is the correct path to restoring morality. Act forcefully and you only contribute to the problem.

[skag]

For beggining, sorry for my poor english. And if I say false things about history, sorry also.

I understand what's your point. You can believe people such as Jesus or Mohammed "used God" for making people follow them. If it was not so, people would have never listen to them, and would have never followed the rules they were teaching us. And that's impossible. No man can never have the power to make millions of people following their rules with the approach they had. You can say for example Hitler made millions of german following him, but he made that with violence and oppression, using poverty and ignorance. While our prophets did not. The very first islamification of middle east was not violent. The fall of the sassanids and the islamification of old persia (which was going from turkey to pakistan, and from yemen to kazakstan) has been made with few thousand mans. And Jesus did not made any war.
After the prophets died, violence has been used to convert population, and that's another proof that these 2 mans were not common. A so powerfull thing such as their religion, cannot be spread by common humans. And most of all, no man can have the possibility to create from nowhere, with no basis, anykind of moral. What a warlord, or a very powerfull person, can do with his mind, is dictating a kind of rules, but rules created for the good cohesion of the empire he made, but not things such has moral and ethics. If you take another time the Romans for example, they were ultra engineers, warlords, politicians. Or the old greeks, good scientists or good philosophicians, but their philosophy was developped around the nature, and how it was working, it never spoke about moral and ethics (as i know at least).
And also, it has no sense. Why Mohammed would have make this ? It was not in an optic of conquering, gathering power to himself, or his population etc. For example, it was deeply forbidden to sack any kind of city taken by the conquest during islamification. All of that was a peacefull process, harming almost to no one, exept fighting people. During all history, great conquest has been made for making a dinasty the greater as possible, the most powerfull as possible. Annihilating anykind of possible threat to their power. Islamification was not the same kind of conquest.

And that's why I believe that when you say all of these values and moral come from the human mind is a false thing.

For resuming, you don't consider them as prophets, but as people who used religion for an unknown reason, I know you'll not change your point of view, and will continue to consider them as common humans. If in fact they were common mans, you are right, but I think it's not.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

You're right. Discussing wether of religion is true or not is completely fruitless

And most of all, no man can have the possibility to create from nowhere, with no basis, anykind of moral.

This is what I don't agree with. And even most animals have a form of ethic. Most of them don't cannibalize if they have other food.