Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Calling all philosophers - a question about normative values/morality.

53 replies

Rantmum · 01/02/2008 17:24

I am very clearly not a philosopher, but I have been trying to sort out a vaguely philosophical question in my head and need some direction!

I believe quite strongly in what I think are fairly fundamental values, human rights and that there must be some universal truths about what is right and wrong - these things inform our judicial system etc, so many of them are ingrained in our culture. For me, these beliefs do not stem from any religious convictions, although I suppose most morality across cultures is found in religious texts. However, this is where my question emerges; if you divorce morality from religion does it exist at all? Are the things that I believe in really stemming from universal truths or is a common human morality a fiction.

If it is a fiction, if we all get to decide for ourselves, then should I just abandon my set of beliefs and with what should I replace them? And if we all did this, would we not just have anarchy?

Sorry I am having a minor existential crises and the fact that I am have never really studied philosophy does not help.

OP posts:
Elkat · 17/02/2008 20:33

I don't think religion does come from morality, in fact i think atheists can be even more moral because they have nothing to gain from being moral.

A religious believer acts morally because they believe in a divine being who they want to please and who will reward them in the afterlife. So for a believer, their moral actions are either down to pleasing someone else, or for selfish gain (getting into heaven).

Whereas, an atheist who chooses to act morally does not stand to gain from his or her actions, or at least stands to gain significantly less. For example, I am an atheist and a vegetarian - because I believe it is wrong to eat animals. I have chosen not to eat meat, but I do not stand to gain anything from this, I do not think I will be rewarded in the afterlife, nor do I think I will gain good karma. I do it because I think it is the right thing to do. Sometimes, it is very hard, particularly when I smell bacon butties and I am mightily tempted. Yet I do not give in. But I could, and no-one would know - because I do not believe in a God or Karma that would/could punish me for such actions. So am I acting less morally? I would say more morally, because I regularly make a sacrifice for no apparent gain (at least if I believed in God I would stand to gain from it!)

That said, I don;t think there are universal norms though. I would love there to be, because the idea of true cultural relativism scares me, but without a divine being who anchors ethics, I cannot see how there can be one.

littlewoman · 25/02/2008 00:21

There is no such thing as a universal truth, most such notions are tied to time/ location/ circumstance. For example, it was normal to be gay in ancient Greece; and the Romans entertained children sexually from the age of seven or so; slavery was the norm until the 1800s. Ideas of morality are embedded in their own society, time and place. (This does NOT mean that I place no value on morals, however).
Often the idea of morality centres around a balance of what is best for the individual versus what is best for society as a whole. Religion helps to circulate these ideas widely, but is not necessary for their existence. Yes there would be anarchy if everybody did as they liked, so the things which our society values (such as not murdering people, not stitching people up) are important for us to observe - with or without religion attached. However, if these values oppress a certain group of people, there is nothing wrong with us opposing those ideas. And won't it be great when the world is a fair place for all?!

Bonaventura · 29/02/2008 14:48

You can say that morality exists as something separate from religion if enough non-religious people feel constrained to behave according to a set of accepted codes. If the time comes when that's no longer true, then I suppose morality has ceased to exist. I don't know any other way of defining the existence of something abstract. You can even say the same about religion itself. If people stop believing in religion, then it stops existing.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread