4 ms·

Having an imperfect moral system imposed is better than having no moral system imposed. You have a context for which you can deviate, but if morality is all rel

by bko 6y ago

Having an imperfect moral system imposed is better than having no moral system imposed. You have a context for which you can deviate, but if morality is all relative, many will be lost. You need something to ground yourself to. That's where familial culture and religion come in. One isn't necessarily better than another, but its useful to have as a starting point

eloff 6y ago
I completely disagree that religion is the only moral system. If you are not religious you still have a moral system. In the West this had been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values, but if you look at countries without that influence you still see a lot of similarities in morals.
- bko 6y ago
  I never said its the only one. It's one that has survived over thousands of years. Other places in the East may have their own values imposed outside of the context of religion. But it still exists. The West for all its flaws based on Judeo-Christian values has its merits. For one, a Japanese person would be more likely to be accepted as an American than an American be accepted as a Japanese. Religion isn't perfect, but it stood the test of time. It helped guide most of my bloodline to today (apart from a brief detour due to communism). Theoretically you can create a moral system and a way of imposing it outside of religion but I think that's dangerous. How sure are you that your new moral system you just thought of will serve your future generations to be happy and productive members of society? I personally wouldn't gamble my children's fate on it
  - eloff 6y ago
    You said you don't have a moral system without religion. That's preposterous. You also don't end up with a moral system you just invented. But how much of it is due to religions present and past is a fair question. Religion is universal, it must clearly serve some purpose and convey some advantage to humans. I'm not arguing it has no value. It's also unclear if you could get rid of god based religions if they would not just be replaced with something else similar to a religion. Woke culture makes me wonder.
    - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
      Supernatural beliefs are universal. Religion is not. Further, Christianity was the first "religion" to insist on its exclusivity. Others were either "people" religions ("Jews believe this"), animistic/traditional spiritualities, or highly polytheistic systems that willingly absorbed or included other gods / belief systems easily. Christians were the first to come along and say: you [anyone in humanity] will burn eternally if you don't practice this belief exclusively, only we are correct. And not only that, by the 3rd century they were executing each other for disagreements about very arcane subjects (consubstantiality, etc.) And then later killing non-Christians as well.
      - eloff 6y ago
        > Supernatural beliefs are universal. Religion is not. Can you point me at a pre modern culture that didn't have religion? I don't know any off hand.
        cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        It really depends on your definition of religion. We tend to superimpose Abrahamic religious models onto how we see "pagan" practices, but in reality many belief systems wouldn't fit what we call religion now. Almost all of them, including traditional Roman beliefs didn't include any notion of their own supremacy or unique truth, for example. The gods were not "perfect" beings or all-knowing they were just ... more powerful people. What you _believed_ was less important than what you practiced (sacrifice, etc.) Christianity was the first to make _belief_ primary. And this goes back to what I was saying at the start of this thread: the church community is nice. But it is tied to an insistence in belief. Like, you have to have these ideas in your head. That's actually kind of f*cked up if you think about it, and kind of an aberration in the context of spiritual practices in all of human history. Most of the time it was: put this idol in your house or give a sacrifice for a good harvest and we're good. Nobody cared if you believed it or not. It's a series of practices to hopefully alter the world. And some good stories to go with it. The Romans were incredulous at the early Christians not because of what they believed ("sure, Christ, why not...") but because they refused to follow along in community practices (no sacrifices to the emperor or city gods) and insisted that _only_ their beliefs were correct.
  - todd_t 6y ago
    "Religion-based" morality is dangerous and it evolves with society. What was acceptable by religion 300-500 years ago isn't acceptable today. And yet, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever? No thanks.
8note 6y ago
Having an imperfect moral system that's not imposed seems just as good as one that is imposed. What's so good about having somebody else decide your moral system?

by bko 6y ago

eloff 6y ago

I completely disagree that religion is the only moral system. If you are not religious you still have a moral system. In the West this had been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values, but if you look at countries without that influence you still see a lot of similarities in morals.

bko 6y ago
I never said its the only one. It's one that has survived over thousands of years. Other places in the East may have their own values imposed outside of the context of religion. But it still exists. The West for all its flaws based on Judeo-Christian values has its merits. For one, a Japanese person would be more likely to be accepted as an American than an American be accepted as a Japanese. Religion isn't perfect, but it stood the test of time. It helped guide most of my bloodline to today (apart from a brief detour due to communism). Theoretically you can create a moral system and a way of imposing it outside of religion but I think that's dangerous. How sure are you that your new moral system you just thought of will serve your future generations to be happy and productive members of society? I personally wouldn't gamble my children's fate on it
- eloff 6y ago
  You said you don't have a moral system without religion. That's preposterous. You also don't end up with a moral system you just invented. But how much of it is due to religions present and past is a fair question. Religion is universal, it must clearly serve some purpose and convey some advantage to humans. I'm not arguing it has no value. It's also unclear if you could get rid of god based religions if they would not just be replaced with something else similar to a religion. Woke culture makes me wonder.
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    Supernatural beliefs are universal. Religion is not. Further, Christianity was the first "religion" to insist on its exclusivity. Others were either "people" religions ("Jews believe this"), animistic/traditional spiritualities, or highly polytheistic systems that willingly absorbed or included other gods / belief systems easily. Christians were the first to come along and say: you [anyone in humanity] will burn eternally if you don't practice this belief exclusively, only we are correct. And not only that, by the 3rd century they were executing each other for disagreements about very arcane subjects (consubstantiality, etc.) And then later killing non-Christians as well.
    - eloff 6y ago
      > Supernatural beliefs are universal. Religion is not. Can you point me at a pre modern culture that didn't have religion? I don't know any off hand.
      - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        It really depends on your definition of religion. We tend to superimpose Abrahamic religious models onto how we see "pagan" practices, but in reality many belief systems wouldn't fit what we call religion now. Almost all of them, including traditional Roman beliefs didn't include any notion of their own supremacy or unique truth, for example. The gods were not "perfect" beings or all-knowing they were just ... more powerful people. What you _believed_ was less important than what you practiced (sacrifice, etc.) Christianity was the first to make _belief_ primary. And this goes back to what I was saying at the start of this thread: the church community is nice. But it is tied to an insistence in belief. Like, you have to have these ideas in your head. That's actually kind of f*cked up if you think about it, and kind of an aberration in the context of spiritual practices in all of human history. Most of the time it was: put this idol in your house or give a sacrifice for a good harvest and we're good. Nobody cared if you believed it or not. It's a series of practices to hopefully alter the world. And some good stories to go with it. The Romans were incredulous at the early Christians not because of what they believed ("sure, Christ, why not...") but because they refused to follow along in community practices (no sacrifices to the emperor or city gods) and insisted that _only_ their beliefs were correct.
- todd_t 6y ago
  "Religion-based" morality is dangerous and it evolves with society. What was acceptable by religion 300-500 years ago isn't acceptable today. And yet, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever? No thanks.

8note 6y ago

Having an imperfect moral system that's not imposed seems just as good as one that is imposed. What's so good about having somebody else decide your moral system?