When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

Thinktwice

[thinktwice]

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

Aristotle produced a simplistic rational ethics based on virtues visible in respected people, and vices visible in non-respected humans. And teaching Aristotle's non-denominational ethics in public schools would be a great idea, but ... We'd be turning out individuals with the same moral upbringing of Alexander the Great, and that wouldn't do in a socialistic world.

Even better is Ayn Rand's ethics. Her's is an ethics metaphysically based in reality and epistemologically based in reason; making it a clear and concise rational ethics that makes sense. Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

[thinktwice]

I wrote this as a post to another thread, but it's a contentious and timely debate topic, so it needs a thread of its own.

[thinktwice]

ping!

[NEWwoman]

This is a contentious topic, especially in our "politically correct" times.

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

The words of the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah, comes to mind. To paraphrase: Woe to those who call light, darkness and darkness light; good evil and evil good ...

I've read Ayn Rand and was impressed with her insight and seemily prophetic predictions of human nature. I think she did not address everything and explained only part of what was going on. I understand that she was an athiest, so she left out the "spiritual" dimension, which is quite a driving force in culture, ethics, etc.

I don't see how we can escape the "spiritual" or "religious" or whatever. Communism tried to squash it and it didn't work.

Also, our founding Fathers (and Mothers to be PC) did acknowledge the Creator, freedom of religion, and Deist like Jefferson, though he did not believe in miracle, had a lot of respect for the Bible.

I know, I'm rambling...

[RJCogburn]

Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I am a fan of Rand's but I only partially agree. Certainly at least some of the founders were religious 'God-fearing' men. Rand's ideas of morality also went far beyond the political areas of the documents.

[w_over_w]

Did you know that the word "religion" does not appear anywhere in the "original" text of the bible? Did you further know the bible claims (on its own merits) to be the Word of God? Not a philosophy, not a theology, not a religion but the revealed Word of God! Religion is of man and as such there is much confusion. Yet, "God is not a man that He would lie . . ."Numbers 23:19. Further, "For God is not the author of confusion . . ."I Cor. 14:33

Too often the word religion is thought to be of God and yet God never gave revelation to Holy Men wherein they wrote "religion". BTW, it's a historical fact that Aristotle was a sodomite.

[Prysson]

I have to interject here with some points of contention.

1. I just want to start by saying that I take issue with the differentiation you make between religious and rational. I assume that you did not intentionally mean in that fashion but if you are a fan of Ayn Rand as I am then you will understand that words MEAN things and that the way we use them has meaning. The way you present it insinuates that your options are religious morality and rational ethics...therefore religion is not rational.

While I would be the first to admit that there are certainly some highly irrational "believers" in religion who care not a whit about the intellectual evidences and analysis behind certain religious doctrines and belief systems...there are also those who believe for who the science of religious thought and reason is an integral part of their religious belief systems. Theosophy and theology are very real intellectual and rational pursuits not whimsical fancies pursued by mindless masses.

2. I have never agreed with the notion that Aristotles “ethics” are free of religious encumbrances. Aristotles logic has one ultimate flaw. There is a reason why people, as a whole, tend to admire and respect certain people more than others. The recognition of those qualities as “good” “worthwhile” “respectable” is still an internal non-rational process. Ayn Rand’s philosophy butts up against the same problem. It is all well and good to talk about having rational value system. In the end though Ayn Rand could never and never did satisfactorily explain why her notion of right and wrong existed. She had a very clear moral code. Just because she was an atheist does not mean that her moral code was not based on religion. Ayn Rand I would argue was a deeply religious woman DESPITE her proclaimed atheism. She held deep convictions about what was right and what was wrong and built a philosophical frame work around them to explain their value in rational terms. But the core notion that what she stood for was RIGHT versus what she was against as being WRONG did not come from a rational judgment…they came from a different kind of understanding. Ayn Rand herself concedes that her belief system is in a way a religious conviction in The Fountainhead. She just denies a maker…she fails to explain however the glaring whole in her argument. She believes and utters on more than one occasion in her writings that there is EVIL. She just seems to dismiss it as some human failing. The fact is that despite Ayn Rands atheism she had a very clear moral clarity about right and wrong. Her philosophical framework was built around the understanding not visa versa. The chicken as it were did not come before the egg. That belief of right and wrong I would argue and I daresay many will agree comes from a deity. A supreme being. That is why we as a people have moral clarity and know the difference between right and wrong. Not because of a rational code of ethics…but because there is such a thing as good and evil. And if there is a good and an evil then there is clearly a god and an anti-god.

3. I was a one time agnostic and a huge believer in Ayn Rand. I am now an avowed Christian and still admire Ayn Rand. I nevertheless have to partly disagree with your statement that Ayn Rand nailed down exactly the philosophy that the founders believed in. Most of the founders were deists. Ayn Rand was not. Most of the founders believed in the morality of freedoms as coming from God. Ayn Rand did not. There was a serious difference that would have very real practical effects. Ayn Rand…despite her philosophies appeal had some glaring prejudices against people of faith. She did not understand people of faith and as a result her explanations of the reasons behind why people have religious faith are seriously flawed.

4. And finally, your assertion that one religions morality is another religions immorality is patently false. Quite the contrary. While it is true that certain religious sects may have varying opinions as to why dancing or wearing skirt or drinking may or may not be a sin. The basic principles that underlie a moral code remain extremely similar. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adultery….Each of them agrees in some measure or fashion that these are moral and GOOD value to have and that to break them is evil. Even Islam despite its extreme violence adheres to these principles. It just builds in a framework wherein followers are excused from perpetrating those “sins” against unbelievers…a sort of moral relativism (Killing is bad but its ok to kill an infidel because God Hates them anyway)
Regardless the point is that all religions despite their very many differences still share a certain common value of what is good and what is bad. And the basics just happen to be the same ones that atheists and agnostics share. The difference is that people of religion tend to believe that that sense of right and wrong come from God while others built philosophies around why it isn’t.

[w_over_w]

Most of the founders believed in the morality of freedoms as coming from God. Ayn Rand did not. There was a serious difference that would have very real practical effects. Ayn Rand…despite her philosophies appeal had some glaring prejudices against people of faith. She did not understand people of faith and as a result her explanations of the reasons behind why people have religious faith are seriously flawed.

Amen! Excellent response.

[thinktwice]

The way you present it insinuates that your options are religious morality and rational ethics...therefore religion is not rational.

Words do mean things and the terms morality and ethics are synonymous.

It is the fact that religions are based in irrational mysticism that makes religions irrational.

[thinktwice]

Woe to those who call light, darkness and darkness light; good evil and evil good ...

Woe to who? Woe to those that believe their suicide bombers will go directly to heaven, or woe to those that believe suicide bombing others to death is murder?

[Prysson]

Wrong. You are making an assertion with no facts to prove it.

My belief system is not based on mystical beliefs and therefore irrational.

I reject your proposition utterly.


That is the problem I have with people who argue as you do. Everything you say comes from the perspective of religion as being some irrational belief in fantasy. Your argument makes sense to you because you dont believe it...ergo it must be mystical nonsense. and not rational.

My belief system is very rational. I will even make it easy for you. I will define rational.

From the dictionary.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason
2. Having or being of sound mind. Sane
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior


The problem is that people such as yourself argue from a perspective of extreme prejudice. You do not "believe" as a person of faith does...therefor they must be wacko nut cases who arent rational.

Your illogic and your own irrational is your unwillingness to ascribe logical thought in others when you disagree with their assertions. It seems preposterous to you that a person could come to "beleive" in a religous perspective through a rational analysis. By your lights they should reject is as "mystical" nonsense. Since the dont they must be irrational..and therefor wrong.

You argument is grossly flawed.

The fact is that a belief in God and the subsequent religious doctrine that forms around that belief are quite capable and in many instances of very sound logic and rationale.


Your position that something that is religious is irrational has no basis in fact, offers no meaningful explanation as to why it is so and as such can be dismissed as little more than an inflamatory bias against people of faith.

[NEWwoman]

Hello thinktwice -

Your challenges are appreciated and (as your moniker implies) you challenge people to think - perhaps more than twice. You are trully the "Devil's Advocate" (sorry for the bad pun.)

Ok. Let's look at the quote. (I looked it up to get it exact.)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

Isaish 5:20 (KJV)

The context is the warning of an Old Testament prophet who believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is God's universe and God divides the light from the darkness and says what's good and what's evil.

Woe to who?

The woe is those who say and do otherwise, who are fighting against God.

Frankly, if anyone challenges that claim, I challege them to create their own universe, and make up their own rules.

As to your specific question : Woe to those that believe their suicide bombers will go directly to heaven, or woe to those that believe suicide bombing others to death is murder?

First off, I prefer to call "suicide" bombers - homicide bombers, because that is more descriptive as to who they are.

Since one of the Ten Commandments (they are commandments, not suggestions) states you shall not murder, I'd say woe to those that believe their suicide bombers will go directly to heaven. And if anyone thinks otherwise, again I challege you to create your own universe and make up your own set of commandments of what is right and wrong.

OK, thinktwice. Make me think.

[thinktwice]

Rand's ideas of morality also went far beyond the political areas of the documents.

The founder's acknowledged that Man's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were endowments from the "Creator" without referencing any specific religious authority and thereby avoiding conflictiing religious arguments.

Similarly, Ayn Rand used reason to deduce that man's highest value is his own life, and she extended her ethics from that logical base -- while avoiding religion's ethical traps.

Rand points out on page two of "The Objectivist Ethics" that ... "The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science; he based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise."

Ayn Rand proceeds, in subsequent pages of "The Objectivist Ethics," to fully develop and explain the whys and wherefores of her rational ethics.

[thinktwice]

BTW, it's a historical fact that Aristotle was a sodomite.

Your point being?

[w_over_w]

Your point being?

Think twice!

[thinktwice]

And if there is a good and an evil then there is clearly a god and an anti-god.

That reminds me of some circular arguments found in Plato's Phaedo, illogical arguments that sound good -- much like popular cliches that push nonsense.

Looking back several hundred years before Plato and Aristotle's time, to Homer and the Hades he describes in "The Odyssey," there was no heaven and hell, all souls went to Hades. And those that were heroes had special treatment, and some others were condemned to perpetual punishments. Aristotle's ethics builds on Homer's thinking regarding virtue and vice.

Good and evil -- Heaven and hell -- that seems to have come from biblical cultures. Cultures that have proven themselves to be far less cultured than -- seemingly -- that of ancient Greece.

[thinktwice]

Most of the founders believed in the morality of freedoms as coming from God. Ayn Rand did not.

From Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics ... "Ethics is not a mystic fantasy -- nor a social convention -- nor a dispensible, subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man'a survival -- not by the grace of the supernatural, nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life."

In other words, man has a spiritual nature in a real world universe where Man's creator (whatever) seems to have expected men to survive by using their real world minds.

[Kyrie]

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

Logically, then, if we find contradictions between two systems of rational ethics in the same way that we can find contradictions between two religions, this would be evidence of serious flaws in rational ethics. If you want to be logically consistent, anyway.

So take any two distinct systems of rational ethics. In order to be distinct, either one must render judgement on a behavior where the other is silent, or they must disagree on some point (a contradiction). If they are both well-developed systems, it is doubtful that there would be many points at which one would render judgement while the other would be silent, and even enough of these would constitute somewhat of a contradiction.

The conclusion is this: if there exist two distinct philosophical systems of rational ethics, then YOU MUST ADMIT THAT RATIONAL ETHICS HAS THE SAME FLAW YOU ASCRIBED TO RELIGIOUS MORALITY.

If you want to be logically consistent, anyway.

BTW, did the Randian system agree in all points with the Aristotelian system? Just asking...

[thinktwice]

The fact is that a belief in God and the subsequent religious doctrine that forms around that belief are quite capable and in many instances of very sound logic and rationale.

Please explain to me why one religion believes suicide bombers will go directly to heaven, and other religions believe that said suicide bombing is murder.

What about the kamakazi pilots in WW-II?

The Crusades --- more religious fanaticism.

Go examine your premises.

[bzrd]

I think your real problem is not with good and evil, but with good and evil as objective realities. If good/evil exist as objective realities, then whatever is good or evil, is good or evil despite what you or I have to say about it. Furthermore, if they exist "without", they were of a logical neccessity, pre-existent to, and separate from, humanity.

It all but spells GOD.

It is for this very reason that atheistic thinkers are forced into denying the existence of evil. What is more troubling [and dangerous] is that this is the godless motive behind the indoctrination school-children with values neutral training.

They are on a mission to produce functional atheists.

Brian.

[thinktwice]

if we find contradictions between two systems of rational ethics in the same way that we can find contradictions between two religions, this would be evidence of serious flaws in rational ethics.

In a rational world, humans make mistakes and contradictions happen; and man's progress toward "truth" requires the answering of contradictions -- the result being revised truth awaiting further contradiction.

When it settles, truth remains. That's the rational way.

Conflicts between religious truths, however, is usually seltled with massive bloodshed and terrible misery.

When that settles, some sort of miserable life might continue. That's the irrational way.

See the difference?