GameBanshee Forums

In this modern day and age, you have a majority of democracies saying that they are secular and religion should be kept out of politics. Which is fair enough. But a majority of the laws established today in secular socities are based on religious laws and statements. To kill somebody is wrong in Christainity, Judaism and Islam. It is a modern day law and the list goes on.

So i was thinking, if a majority of laws have a religious basis by which they are defined and used to gauge right and wrong, isnt religion established with the existing political infrastructure? Thus religion and politics arent realy that seperated.

Also on morals, religion defines what is wrong for many of us. And today those very same religious rights and wrongs are mainstream views. So a second question would be are all morals religiously based? If so, does that mean athetist etc have no morals? This is just out there to discuss, i dont have an opinion on this second part. But it would make an interesting discussion.

Good thread, Fas.

Religion, as a major influence in society, both in terms of it's historical impact and it's modern-day part in determining cultural values, plays a great part in deciding the law. Anything which impacts upon a given community's system of values will also indirectly have an effect on it's laws, as the law is determined through dominant social values.
So in other words, yes, religion and politics are not so distant as many people seem to believe, as politics are decided by dominant values. This does not necessarily work as a good thing, BTW, one needs only examine aspects like the (up until comparatively recently) way women and homosexuals were disadvantaged under Western law.

As for your second point, as religious rights and wrongs have become mainstream values, they have also become the adopted general values of the majority of irreligious people as well. Hence, while a lot of morals are based in some way upon religion (though not necessarily directly so), atheists too have adopted many of these same behavioral codes of conduct, though they do not necessarily believe that those morals are of divine origin.
In other words, no, atheists are not necessarily without morals, though it could be argued that morals are personally defined, and hence everyone has their own set of morals whether they correspond to the mainstream society's morals or not.

Re: Good thread, Fas.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
and hence everyone has their own set of morals whether they correspond to the mainstream society's morals or not.

Isn't that kind of scary considering some of the fruit cakes we have in society?

Originally posted by CM

In this modern day and age, you have a majority of democracies saying that they are secular and religion should be kept out of politics. Which is fair enough. But a majority of the laws established today in secular socities are based on religious laws and statements. To kill somebody is wrong in Christainity, Judaism and Islam. It is a modern day law and the list goes on.

So i was thinking, if a majority of laws have a religious basis by which they are defined and used to gauge right and wrong, isnt religion established with the existing political infrastructure? Thus religion and politics arent realy that seperated.

The problem with this is that you take for granted that religion is the basis of morality. I don't think this is the case. It is true that many religions say: don't kill etc. and morality says the same: don't kill.
But does this mean that morality is based on religion? I will ask you to consider the opposite - that the religious laws are based on morality. So when the religious leaders were writing their laws down they based those laws on the notion of morality. This would explain a number of things for example why all the religions broadly agree, they are based on the same notion.
On this view the secular laws are also based on morality and so are separate from religion even though they share the same basis.

Originally posted by CM

Also on morals, religion defines what is wrong for many of us. And today those very same religious rights and wrongs are mainstream views. So a second question would be are all morals religiously based? If so, does that mean athetist etc have no morals? This is just out there to discuss, i dont have an opinion on this second part. But it would make an interesting discussion.

Now here I would just say the same - morality is not based on religion.

But lets assume that it is for the moment. An atheist could still follow almost all the religious laws without believing in god. But the problem is that a religious person would say that I am doing it for the wrong reasons - namely I am not following the religious laws because I think god told me to do so.
Again I would turn this on its head and say I am following a number of rules because of the results of my actions. Lets say I want to hit someone, I don't because I know it would hurt that person.
A religious might also want to hit someone but he don't because he believes god told him not to.
Now who has done what for the right reason? I didn't hit because the person would be hurt while the religious person didn't hit because someone told him not to.

Re: Re: Good thread, Fas.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Isn't that kind of scary considering some of the fruit cakes we have in society?

You know what's worse? Most of them can vote, and many can get access to guns...

Re: Re: secular laws (No spam)

Originally posted by Tom
Now who has done what for the right reason? I didn't hit because the person would be hurt while the religious person didn't hit because someone told him not to.

Isnt' the important thing in that analogy that the person wasn't hit? Personally i am not really concerned where the morality came from, if it works to stop people from abusing each other then that is the important thing.

Re: Re: Re: secular laws (No spam)

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Isnt' the important thing in that analogy that the person wasn't hit? Personally i am not really concerned where the morality came from, if it works to stop people from abusing each other then that is the important thing.

Yes it is important that the person wasn’t hit but the reason why he wasn’t hit is at least as important if not more important I think.

Consider this.

Situation 1. A little girl is drowning in a lake and a man sees her jumps in and rescues her. He did it because she was going to drown.

Situation 2. A little girl is drowning in a lake and a man sees her. He thinks "why should I safe her I will get wet". He then sees a beautiful woman looking at the scene. He jumps in and saves the girl. He did it because he believed the beautiful woman would be impressed.

Do we assign the same moral value to the two situations?

I wouldn't.

Re: Re: Re: Re: secular laws (No spam)

Originally posted by Tom
Do we assign the same moral value to the two situations?

I wouldn't.

You really are good at this kind of thing In the end though the girl is saved, i get what your pushing at, i do see your point.

The point you illustrate is more relevant to vanity then morality, i don't know of many men who would just leave a little girl drown.

I think that even if a Christian presumes they are following a moral ethic to appease their God after a while this morality would become ingrained and would be a knee jerk reaction.

Originally posted by CM
But a majority of the laws established today in secular socities are based on religious laws and statements.

Actually, the laws you're refering to are in western societies based on morale values which aren't the same thing as religious rules of conduct. However, throughout history there is no doubt that various religions have made a huge impact upon what we consider/have considered common moral. But modern european civil law (I shouldn't say to much about the common law as I'm not that familiar with it) is also greatly influenced by for example the old roman law.

You'll also find that most laws today in fact are based purely on practical or economical reasons (taxation law, real estate law, corporate law, business law and so forth).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: secular laws (No spam)

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


You really are good at this kind of thing In the end though the girl is saved, i get what your pushing at, i do see your point.

The point you illustrate is more relevant to vanity then morality, i don't know of many men who would just leave a little girl drown.

I think that even if a Christian presumes they are following a moral ethic to appease their God after a while this morality would become ingrained and would be a knee jerk reaction.

shees you make me blush.

While I believe what I say I didn't come up with this stuff - part of a philosophy degree is moral philosophy.

Originally posted by Tom
While I believe what I say I didn't come up with this stuff - part of a philosophy degree is moral philosophy.

So are there any other interesting questions in that degree that relate to CM's point?

Look what i have gotten myself into now. But this is fun.

Ode i agree with what you have said. But if morals are personally defined, then stealing would not be a big moral hinderance for someone who doesnt have enough to eat. Yet most of us would consider that morally wrong even if we tacitly approval of it.

Take a political and hot topic. Suicide bombers. What is morally right for one group is not morally right for the other. Leading to conflict and in same cases anarchy. And if everybody defined their morals independently, there would be anarchy. But i guess that is exactly what you want

Sleep these guys are also the head of most leading religious organizations or nations. Bush being a good example. If you look through history, the greatest leaders have been those who in my opinion had their own set of values and morals. Mandela, Churchill are two that spring to mind.

Tom, I agree it could be seen from the alternative point of view. But historically speaking many of the religions established the concepts of right and wrong did they not? But before we get into this i have a question so i can frame my arguements accordingly.

I believe you are not a religious person, but do you believe in say Moses, Jesus and Mohammad as historical figures? Like i believe the 10 commandments brought up the first issue of morality to modern man. There were dos and donts rights and wrongs which gave birth to the concept of morality (what is right and wrong). Even if you dont believe them being sent down from God, do you believe that the events took place and say that Moses established the 10 by himself? Or do you discount the entire religious history as invalid in your opinion?

I will get to the second para after we have discussed the first if that is ok with you.

As for your examples, it depends which rule of morality do you follow:

1. The means justify the end.
2. The end justify the means.
(BTW what are these two called? As people can tell i am really bad with names, books, tv shows, philiosphers etc. heck i forget my cousins names)

Taking the case of the girl drowning in both cases she is saved. So option2 wouldnt really care how the girl is saved, and thus assign no moral value as the girl is saved. However option1 will assign a moral value depending on your actions and the reasons for your actions. So depending on the way you view things there can be a moral value assigned to the scenerio.

Re: Re: secular laws (No spam)

Originally posted by Astafas


Actually, the laws you're refering to are in western societies based on morale values which aren't the same thing as religious rules of conduct. However, throughout history there is no doubt that various religions have made a huge impact upon what we consider/have considered common moral. But modern european civil law (I shouldn't say to much about the common law as I'm not that familiar with it) is also greatly influenced by for example the old roman law.

You'll also find that most laws today in fact are based purely on practical or economical reasons (taxation law, real estate law, corporate law, business law and so forth).

Here is the point Tom also raised. Was there a concept of morality before religion? I believe that religion established the first concept or morality and what is right and wrong. Most laws or common morals at the times of the other pre-the one god religions, were very individualistic IIRC. Also wouldnt you agree that after the Roman empire accepted christainity the rules were changed to abide by the religious decrees? Thus the modern laws were influenced in a way by religion. I agree some laws as in the business ones were based on praticality. However what about the moral laws on murder, stealing, etc.

Originally posted by CM

Taking the case of the girl drowning in both cases she is saved. So option2 wouldnt really care how the girl is saved, and thus assign no moral value as the girl is saved. However option1 will assign a moral value depending on your actions and the reasons for your actions. So depending on the way you view things there can be a moral value assigned to the scenerio.

But I can't see how THIS could be constructed into a law...

No worries, just curious.

Beldin

Originally posted by CM
Look what i have gotten myself into now. But this is fun.

Ode i agree with what you have said. But if morals are personally defined, then stealing would not be a big moral hinderance for someone who doesnt have enough to eat. Yet most of us would consider that morally wrong even if we tacitly approval of it.

Would we? I wouldn't.

Ode ok this would bring into question whether people believe that the end result is important or the act is important and how absolutist people are. I have a friend who is completely ortodox. He believes that stealing is wrong no matter what the reasons. With his point of view, the stealing is wrong even if the person will go hungry. He believes his morals are absolute. What is written down as wrong ie stealing is wrong no matter what. From this point of view, the person stealing is morally wrong.

Looking at it from the point of view of the shop keeper, the kid stole. That is wrong, morally because he is robbing the shop keeper of something he could sell. He feels he has been wronged.

The bystander depending on his point of view, could see it as a good thing, believe that one apple or whatever couldnt hurt the shopkeeper and that the kid needs it. However that point of view may change if the bystander has his pocket picked by the same kid.

I personal view is that his circumstances change what he believes is right and wrong. If he needs to steal to survive he will do so. Morality isnt an issue. If i , a well to do person can easily pay for the food, yet i still steal, then that is morally wrong.

Beldin, that hopefully will never be a rule, that you can save littel girls when there are women around My point was simply that you can assign a moral value to that scenerio depending on how you look at things. I couldnt say the same for the hitting example, as that brings in religion as one of the dominant reasons.

Re: Re: Re: secular laws (No spam)

Originally posted by CM
Also wouldnt you agree that after the Roman empire accepted christainity the rules were changed to abide by the religious decrees?

I don't think murder, stealing, etc was just fine before the Roman Empire was Christianized, you know. And likewise, even afterwards, there were probably certain situations where the rules could be bent. Let's say a rich merchant has a disobedient slave punished by whipping, and the slave dies. Is the merchant going to be considered a murderer? Probably not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: secular laws (No spam)

Originally posted by Georgi


I don't think murder, stealing, etc was just fine before the Roman Empire was Christianized, you know. And likewise, even afterwards, there were probably certain situations where the rules could be bent. Let's say a rich merchant has a disobedient slave punished by whipping, and the slave dies. Is the merchant going to be considered a murderer? Probably not.

They werent fine, but the religion did spin a couple of things. Take the example of the rich merchant. I am not sure but christianity outlaws slavery right? If that is true then the person was committing a morally illegal act. Killing the slave would be like killing a normal man. Thus it would considered murder. However if a person got off scot free, that i believe wouldnt be a moral issue, rather a political legal or bueacractic one.

Originally posted by CM
Ode ok this would bring into question whether people believe that the end result is important or the act is important and how absolutist people are. I have a friend who is completely ortodox. He believes that stealing is wrong no matter what the reasons. With his point of view, the stealing is wrong even if the person will go hungry. He believes his morals are absolute. What is written down as wrong ie stealing is wrong no matter what. From this point of view, the person stealing is morally wrong.

Hence my point, that although religion and morality are often interconnected people have their own morals, which are no less right or wrong than anyone elses.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Hence my point, that although religion and morality are often interconnected people have their own morals, which are no less right or wrong than anyone elses.

Agreed, however if that were the case, wouldnt there be anarchy? I left out what the majority view is as well - or common morals. The common morals depending on which side they take, of the shop keeper or the kid affects the individual morals as well. I agree with your point that everybody has individual morals, however the common morals of the majority heavily influence our morals and these common morals i believe are greatly influenced if not derived from religion. I have some work to do right now. Explain later in greater detail by 4:30 i should be done. 1 hour from now.