|
|
|
|
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 7:57:04 AM | Firstly i would like to address the point of Psychopathy and morailty.
In Psychology, morailty stems from an indavidualls theory of mind combined with thier empathy. If an indavidual dose not have a well devolped snese of either theory of mind or empathy, then they will not have the necisery mental skills to provide them with a moral sense of right and wrong.
A person suffering from Psycopathy, has a very poorly devolped theory of mind. They are often completely unable to discern that other people may have thoughts and fealings difren to thier own. When asked about the thoughts and fealings of others, people with Psycopathy can only relate how it impacts upon themselves, not others. (This is also seen in Pedophiles and some serial rapists who are also unable to discern that thier victims may not feal the same way they do.)
So discussing personal morality in relation to Psycopathy is pointless as they are mutually exlusive. People with Psycopathy are unable to make emotional judgments of situations that do not concern them directly and must relly purelly on logic to tel them what to do.
As for moralls without religion, well there have been plenty enough studies to show that religion is completely unnecisery to having a moral compas. Just look at the top ten list of athiest countries.
"1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism."
http://militantatheism.blogspot.com/2007/08/least-religious-countries.html
http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7
Secularism and humanism seem to have a better effect on morality that religious fanatism. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 11:22:04 AM | | The amount of athiest countries are much less than you imagine. The predominancy of Hinduism/Mohamadism is vastly extended from China to the Mediteranean seas. Communism's back was broken at Vietnam and remains that way other than to the obvious. The Bejing games has brought out much more than the removal of the walls has ever done. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 11:47:25 AM |
Secularism and humanism seem to have a better effect on morality that religious fanatism
But do they seem to have a better effect on morality than religious non-fanaticism? That would be an apples and apples comparison, wouldn't it? | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 11:53:26 AM |
That would be an apples and apples comparison, wouldn't it?
Yes, I belive it would be.
Most people are sane a nd rational and highly moral, it is only the lunatics and fanatics that let the side down in all walks of life. The belife or non-belife in god dose not apear to have any effect on moral behaviour, there are just as many people who are moral without religion as there moral with religion. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 4:57:52 PM |
Most people are sane a nd rational and highly moral, it is only the lunatics and fanatics that let the side down in all walks of life.
Are we really?
Or quite possibly more people than we like to think, are not "moral" at all. They simply do the right thing as the consequences of getting caught are not worth it? There may be more out there predisposed to violent crime than we might like to know about.
For me, the coincidence of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolko meeting is just to great, it might not be such a rare thing after all . May be a lot more out there, morally predisposed to such behavior. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 6:24:50 PM | There are plenty of interesting responses, but the phrase that hit me is one of the major ethical decisions that someone might make, with or without a religious perspective. I find that a lot of my views are developed in discussions with others, but I am able to attach firm rules to my ethics and moral perceptions. This is the sentence written by Dunrich:
Hey I hate the 407, would love to cheat them of their toll. Would not make it a moral choice to do that though, theft is still theft, whether you like the one you are stealing from or not.
This is a noble thought, and you have your inner peace. You have forgiven the transgression, and you do not seek vengeance of the uncomfortable transgression. On a reasonable scale of transgressions against you, this would seem minor. Would you feel the same if you were repeated robbed at gunpoint? Of course, that is a rhetorical question. There are situations that require a more agressive ethical standard to avoid abuses.
I posted a response to another thread which describes a socially valid and ethical morality which accomodates a wide spectrum of possible interactions, and assures that peace is the primary result.
If you have not adopted a standard philosophy, it would be a good time to define your own ethical perspective. You have three choices:
1) Forgiveness
2)Detachment
3)Vengeance
You should choose one, since you have not chosen a religion. The Christian choice is Forgiveness. You do not need to accept Christianity to accept that forgiveness should be the primary choice if you ever wish to be forgiven. I am not Christian, but adopt an independant form of Native American spirituality, and I accept forgiveness as the first choice, with Detachment following if forgiveness isn't a two-way street, and follow that with vengeance if trespasses against me continue after detachment. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 6:25:52 PM |
For me, the coincidence of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolko meeting is just to great, it might not be such a rare thing after all . May be a lot more out there, morally predisposed to such behavior
The case of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka is not merely an issue of morality any more than other random senseless murders. If this is, to you, indication of many others who are "morally predisposed" to such behaviour, who are they? Well, I can only think of a very few examples. Paul and Karla's crimes are just as horrific as Francis Bacon's popes, or Jack the Ripper's victims, or the stabbing of a dozen strangers, including the pregnant wife of a famous Hollywood film director.
These are not issues of morality. Both of these characters had a prodigious thirst for sexual sadism - in other words - psychopaths. In addition to that, it's been suggested that both Paul and Karla had antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders which were complicated by exhibitionism and paraphilia (extreme sexual fetishism) - all conditions described by the DSM-IV - the dictionary/manual of psychiatric disorders. Fortunately, serial rapists and murderers are relatively rare beasts in the criminal landscape. I've read before that except for masochism, which is still relatively uncommon, other paraphilias are very rarely diagnosed in females.
I feel that it is improper to compare these cases with the amorality of secularist cultures. Are you are suggesting that the general populace is fraught with serious psychological conditions that are only held in check by religious indoctrination or the threat of criminal prosecution?
The frequency of these types of crimes would seem to lead us to believe otherwise.
Tootles........ | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 7:09:11 PM |
All humans are not born with an internal moral code that causes them to choose right from wrong. How can that be proven???
Humans learn such right/wrong from a variety of sources - teachers, parents, philosophy, books (religious and non-), peers, culture, society, laws, and other influences. From the process of socialization, I agree.. BUT we each ultimately choose for ourselves whether we accept or reject this imposed sense of morality.. and what's more.. we all do so each and every day..
Some of us choose to consult the bible or another external source on such matters.. whereas others consult their heart/conscience. Regardless, each of us makes the final choice in how we wish to define morality. Therefore, I submit that ALL morality is essentially personal/internal.
The simple fact that humans do "wrong" because they are "not perfect" demonstrates that this sense of right and wrong is neither inherent nor genetic. Right and wrong are totally subjective and depends upon many factors. We are each different as well as imperfect, so how can a sense of right and wrong be inborn? I never said it was. I was objecting to how you seemed to insinuate that we as humans do not have a built in "want to do the right thing". I disagree with that sentiment and feel that there is something wrong if a person is not feeling or expressing that desire to do the right thing... and that they are in need of healing, not judgment, but I digress...
Of course, philosophically, such discussions need to define "right' and "wrong" as well. Of course, and since such notions are totally subjective, the conversation is doomed to be circular..
Knowing you, as I do, the "some" would never include you. I can't tell what you mean here, but knowing you as I do, I am sure it wasn't an insult  | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 7:55:12 PM | Hi Sassy,
I am going to attempt to avoid disagreement with you, and grant some flexability in your wording. Your clarity is obvious, but the choice of words might cause confusion.
Some of us choose to consult the bible or another external source on such matters.. whereas others consult their heart/conscience. Regardless, each of us makes the final choice in how we wish to define morality. Therefore, I submit that ALL morality is essentially personal/internal.
I agree that the decision to define a morality is essentially personal and internal, but to preperly define it, it must be externalized. The alternative would be someone who acts outside of their internal morality, and excuses hypocrisy. Any hypocrisy would never be recognized unless their morality is externalized. It is each persons own responsibility to properly define the parameters to be considered as one having morals. They might have guidelines, and those will typically substitute until they can define a set of parameters. This is a good basis for the argument that people who have not adopted a religion or philosphy have no morals. As far as I know, there is not a moral structure which inherently allows hypocrisy. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 8:20:53 PM |
I agree that the decision to define a morality is essentially personal and internal, but to preperly define it, it must be externalized. Externalized as in.. acted upon? Well yes.. actions follow thought.. thoughts follow beliefs..
The alternative would be someone who acts outside of their internal morality, and excuses hypocrisy. Interesting... see, if I act outside of my morals... it is time for me to make some internal changes as well as ammends.. hypocricy doesn't really come into play..
But I see what you are saying, if the morality is strictly personal and internal.. then one cannot be held accountable and called out in a moment of so called hypocricy..
I guess that is why we have laws. The rest is determined by each of us, religion or no.. we also each ultimately live with the consequences.
I may agree with the above, but I cannot see how you have made the jump to this:
This is a good basis for the argument that people who have not adopted a religion or philosphy have no morals. Could you elaborate.. ? | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 8:34:53 PM |
But I see what you are saying, if the morality is strictly personal and internal.. then one cannot be held accountable and called out in a moment of so called hypocricy..
Exactly, if you cannot specifically state your "set of rules," you have averted any claims of hypocrisy. That is what I meant by externalizing your internal decision.
how you have made the jump.
It is a simple and logical conclusion. Morals are defined as a "set of rules," and I it easy to see that those who have not adopted a philosophy ( or religion) commonly do not create a visible set of rules. If you actually create your own set, you are a Philosopher or the founder of a religion, and have adopted your own Philosophy. I did not find the Philosophy that I posted earlier, I created it. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 9:19:54 PM | | In my opinion, the source of morality comes from a buffet of sources: our innate sense of right and wrong, religion, society, family, friends, laws, various philosophies, history, etc etc, and a given person's moral code is what they pick and choose from the buffet. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/28/2008 9:37:24 PM |
Exactly, if you cannot specifically state your "set of rules," you have averted any claims of hypocrisy. While I may see what you are saying, I really find it to be a moot point. I don't need someone to come along and say "YOU hypocrite!!" in order to keep me on the so called straight and narrow, lol... this is because I am accountable to ME (and God).. not some external source ;)
And as far as stating the set of rules, if I am living by them of course I can!!
It is a simple and logical conclusion. From your vantage point perhaps, certainly not mine.. notice how that works?
Morals are defined as a "set of rules," and I it easy to see that those who have not adopted a philosophy ( or religion) commonly do not create a visible set of rules. With all do respect, huh? When I act on my personal morals.. violla! They are visible.
If you actually create your own set, you are a Philosopher or the founder of a religion, and have adopted your own Philosophy. I live by my own moral code, that does not mean I am the founder of a religion, lol... I have also created my own personal spirituality.. which btw is not the same thing.. but I guess from your perspective this makes me a priest? Lol... | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/29/2008 7:05:21 AM |
If this is, to you, indication of many others who are "morally predisposed" to such behaviour, who are they? Well, I can only think of a very few examples.
OK, what is unique is that 2 individuals, not only shared this behavior, but met and actually verbalized their desires. Many other example can be used, usually both were males though.
Can not help wondering, how many might be morally predisposed to doing this, if they were sure they would not get caught? Whats the odds of 2 meeting, actually verbalizing their fantasy in this way. Then wonder, how many do this, yet did not have the "triggers" happen that would stop them from moving from fantasy to actually committing them?
Are these individuals really so rare? Or, are many simply silent, have the ability to keep quiet about what they like, because the consequences of getting caught are to great?
Sometimes I think there are more people who choose not to act on these impulses simply because of the consequence rather than a "moral" reason. Give the right triggers though, perhaps war, perhaps meeting someone the same ( as in Paul and Karla) and they are quite capable of shocking moral actions. At times I do think there are more people with out any morals than we suspect.
Nothing at all to do with their religious beliefs. Some people just seem to not have the same morals built into them. Put one under extreme stress, like a battle field, and they can display great kindness, another, commit terrible atrocities.
Perhaps, there is a genetic predisposition to moral choice, or lack of one? | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/29/2008 7:35:48 AM | The nature of the beast changed when hunger's successes slowly conditioned itself to realize a door often closes behind it, and one door leading to great riches, was never better than the door leading to lesser riches, but more doors as well.  | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/29/2008 9:20:04 AM |
OK, what is unique is that 2 individuals, not only shared this behavior, but met and actually verbalized their desires. Many other example can be used, usually both were males though.
Can not help wondering, how many might be morally predisposed to doing this, if they were sure they would not get caught? Whats the odds of 2 meeting, actually verbalizing their fantasy in this way. Then wonder, how many do this, yet did not have the "triggers" happen that would stop them from moving from fantasy to actually committing them?
Paul and Karla’s behaviour falls into the furthest reaches of the bell curve. Most of Canada’s dangerous offenders are psychopaths – in addition to Paul and Karla, you can include Clifford Olson in that group.
There will be members of society exhibiting some of these behaviours (albeit, most of them are male as you have pointed out). The chance of a female psychopath with some of these behaviours meeting up with male counterpart is probably pretty rare, because these behaviours in females are rare. All the paraphilias of exhibitionism, fetisihism, frotteurism, paedophilia, masochism, and sadism, are almost exclusively male in their behavioural mechanisms, as is narcissism. Many of these behaviours exhibit a profound lack of empathy in others. Don’t forget that these individuals must also have the capacity to reject the moral absolutism that rape, torture, and killing are utterly wrong.
Furthermore, Karla encouraged Paul’s sadistic behaviour, and encouraged him to participate in the drugging and rape of her young sister. Karla and Paul both raped and later murdered girls while videotaping them. While on honeymoon in Hawaii, they allegedly committed a violent rape. I maintain that it’s a real anomaly that these two got together.
But I think you’re right in that there are probably quite a few “sub-clinical” psychopaths who are perhaps charming but don’t have empathy for others and don’t form emotional bonds. A significant proportion of persistent wife beaters, and people who have unprotected sex despite carrying the AIDS virus, are probably psychopaths. These sub-clinical psychopaths are your neighbour, your boss, and your blind date. But are they capable of the same acts that Paul and Karla committed? I would say “no” in most cases.
They still represent a very small minority of the population.
Be well........ | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/29/2008 4:23:57 PM | {quote]The chance of a female psychopath with some of these behaviours meeting up with male counterpart is probably pretty rare, because these behaviours in females are rare. All the paraphilias of exhibitionism, fetisihism, frotteurism, paedophilia, masochism, and sadism, are almost exclusively male in their behavioural mechanisms, as is narcissism. Many of these behaviours exhibit a profound lack of empathy in others. Don’t forget that these individuals must also have the capacity to reject the moral absolutism that rape, torture, and killing are utterly wrong.
What scares me? Maybe there are more females than we think that are morally capable of this behavior?
Traditionally , they have not been as prone as their male counterparts in risk taking . This is changing I think.
Had a very interesting conversation with a Psychologist years ago, prior to the Bernardo/ Homolko trial. She had studied this case at the request of the Police , determined that many of the things that occurred were directed by Homolko, not Bernardo. If I remember right she used the term jealous female traits , describing the hair being cut off.
When I showed amazement that such a thing could be done by a female, she assured me that just as many females were capable of immoral behavior as men. In fact, it was quite possible that several serial killers who had been at work in Ontario since 1959, might have eluded Police because they were so busy looking for a single male, or male with male counterpart. Possibly, females had been part of some of the murders.
It is not morals that have stopped some of this abhorrent behavior as much as it was the risk taking factor, up till now, has not been as prevalent in Females.
Anyway, I do not see how these psychopaths morals can be influenced one bit by religion or beliefs. Well, until they get caught, have a jail house conversion that is. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/29/2008 5:07:47 PM | That is my point really, psychopaths are incapable of loyalty, shame, or guilt. So they aren't susceptible to morality or laws, as those are for other people. They don't conform to social norms at all, which is why their cases aren't issues of immorality. And the risk of being caught isn't likely to stop them either, nor are threats of imprisonment - they are not rational like you and I are.
But again, I feel that you are confusing "immoral behaviour" with something that is really deviant. Sure - women are capable of immoral behaviour - absolutely - happens every day. But, serial killers like Paul Bernardo aren't just "immoral." I've done things that might be considered somewhat "immoral," but they were very minor and never bordered on the issues we are referring to. With Paul and Karla, we are not just referring to thrill-seeking, irresponsible, self-defeating, impulsive and lawbreaking behaviour.
On an aside, Karla Homolka claimed that she cut off her victims hair to foil forensics - this was published information, so I'm not sure whether this could be attributed to a "jealous female trait." But who really knows? I'm certainly not defending her. Yes, she was the perpetrator behind many of their joint actions. But again, there is a great difference between a counterpart who enables another by not reporting evidence or even concealing evidence, and one who actively partakes in these crimes. Many times these events are characterized as post-traumatic stress or battered-wife syndrome in a woman, but Karla is another case entirely. She manipulated some of her psychiatrists and lawyers into believing that she played her role as a result of being a battered woman. Sure, she got battered, but that was incidental to her role in the serial rapes and murders. Again, this is not "immoral" behaviour - if that were all Karla were guilty of, she would never have become famous.
We don't know whether females were involved in any other serial murders if we have not caught a perpetrator. Sure, it's possible. We can theorize all we want about it, but we can't claim to have knowledge of the incidence of true female deviancy if we can't associate a female with the crime.
It is generally accepted that psychopaths cannot benefit from therapy, therefore, they cannot experience "conversions" either. A 1992 Canadian study that found treated psychopaths reoffend more than psychopaths who are not treated. A larger study, completed in Britain, showed the same observation. It may be that all psychopaths learn by undergoing treatment, is how to manipulate better by appearing more caring.
Hannibal Lecter could learn good manners, but not morality.
Be well....... | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/29/2008 5:40:03 PM | Am I incapable of shame or guilt because I continue to indulge my taste for flesh, despite knowing it is satisfied through the systematic breeding and slaughtering of innocent lives.
It's all in the context.
*goes to eat a ham sandwich* | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/30/2008 4:46:49 AM | I dont believe in god or other gods but in the same sense i have morals because i was taught to be very respectful and to be honest. Religion in the other hand just because if you dont have faith or believe in god it dont make the person not have morals its how they where taught as a child .
So why does religion have to do with having morals ? Or is it that if a person chooses not to believe in religion does that mean the person is bad come on now.
It boils down to how u where brought up as a kid to adult it's from the teachings from the parents not always a church .
If the parents dont teach there kids to be respectful or honest or dont show any kind of love yes that child will grow up with out morals or better yet a preacher a follower of god mind you goes ahead and molest a child messes that childs mind up but yet he is a pastor and yet does he have morals i think not.
So with this topic i would say this religion has nothing to do with morals its how you are raised and how you where taught. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/30/2008 12:00:20 PM | | There is difference between those who think that they are religious and act as such and those who are and also there are many of those who are no religious and are still great and moral people. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/30/2008 12:08:53 PM | | good point. Who is more moral - the person who does good things because s/he feels its the right thing to do, or the person who does good things because they seek reward/fear punishment in the afterlife? | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/30/2008 12:39:47 PM | Who is more moral - the person who does good things because s/he feels its the right thing to do, or the person who does good things because they seek reward/fear punishment in the afterlife? More moral? I do not think such a thing can exist. I believe that there is moral and there is immoral.
I do not think that one is simply taught what is moral, although I think one can be. I truly believe that all men are born with a "moral code" embedded in them.
Sure there are men who appear not to have this invisible "moral code", but this is extremely uncommon, and again they most likely simply "appear" not to.
Did you know that even those who most would call the most savage men of all men (cannibals) refuse to eat their young? Why?
In all of recorded history, honesty has been held as a "good" quality in man. Why?
Although you may find many men who believe they may take more than one wife, you will scarcely find a man that thinks he can have any woman he wants. Why?
I have worked with small children, very small, and have witnessed them expressing guilt after having bitten another child, but usually only if the other begins to cry. Why? These things, and many more, have always lead me to doubt that "morals" are taught.
Do I think that one can have "morals" without religion? I do not think that one can be without religion. One way or another. And I think all men have morals. Now rather they choose to act of them, that is another question.
IMHO | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/30/2008 3:30:27 PM | I think it is possible to have morals without religion, and religion without morals. However, most religions seem to speak about having morals, and so if you don't adhere to a religion, that makes it very easy to not bother with morals. There is just no need for you to have them and be happy. It might cause problems in society, but if you can get away with it, why not?
In my experience, I've encountered lots of non-religious people who seemed immoral in business or dating. Often such people would tell me that "religion was a crutch". They seemed to discuss subjects in an amoral fashion. They seemed very interested in ensuring that they would not get arrested, and that their reputation was such that it would enhance their success in their dealings with others. But they really weren't that bothered about morals, only about getting what they wanted.
On the other hand, I've encountered religious people who seemed to abandon their morals in business or in dating, but when I talked to them, they said things such as "you cannot be in business without being corrupt", or other such sentiments.
What I find more interesting, is that non-religious people seem to be very disturbed at the idea of lacking morals. It raises an existentialist question in me: Are we immoral by nature? After all, we do lots of immoral things. So what bothers us so, at the idea that we are immoral?
When we kill in self-defence, aren't we just murderers? On the other hand, if we let someone kill us, aren't we just letting someone murder us? So aren't we murdering ourselves?
That is why I believe that morality is not simply a set of rules on how to behave with others, but it is something much deeper. Immorality is when we murder for profit, not because we NEED that money to survive, but because we will get an extra benefit from that money. However, the harm we will cause to others by that action is far greater than the harm we will cause to ourselves to not act. Effectively, immorality is putting a small gain for us ahead of a large gain for others, and morality is considering others, and acknowledging that we need to be willing to accept a small loss for us in favour of a large gain for others.
Immorality scares us, because without morality, there is no limit as to what we will do. Without morality, we would be willing to do anything to satisfy our own desires, even though we gain little by it and it seriously hurts many people at the same time. We can even be immoral by doing something that will satisfy our desires in a small way right now, that will cost us greatly in the long term.
However, we only fear immorality, because we know how easy it is to be immoral. Morality is not instinctive in us, and we fear that we might be immoral and suffer by it, either us, or our family and friends, or our society.
Religion tells us to consider G-d, and so it makes us consider others outside of us. Without religion, there is nothing that specifically tells us that we MUST think of others. Only law and other such institutions tell us to be considerate of others, and those instructions are usually accompanied by threat of punishment, so often it can seem to us that we are only being moral to avoid punishment and hurt to ourselves.
The way I see it, without religion, we are left bereft of a reason within ourselves to be considerate of others, and only to be considerate in ways that we believe will help ourselves, which is still only being considerate of ourselves, so we are not truly considerate of others. So if we abandon religion, it seems that we need to still acknowledge that we have a need to acknowledge the existence of others, and that we have an obligation to be considerate of others, and that this consideration is something intrinsic to our existence.
It seems to be a very deep question. | |
|
| Morals without Religion?
Posted: 8/30/2008 5:39:55 PM | I have worked with small children, very small, and have witnessed them expressing guilt after having bitten another child, but usually only if the other begins to cry. Why? These things, and many more, have always lead me to doubt that "morals" are taught.
Hey there DA, very interesting, my son use to love biting my daughter... my analysis? He wanted to devour her out of existence... Oh, before anyone shoots me down, think on this... attention seeking in children is THE most common factor for 'bad behaviour'. Obviously (imho only) it's a psychological thang! :) | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
