Is religion a suitable basis for moral reasoning?

[Tommy-K]

This was an essay question in a general studies exam I had earlier this week. Naturally I wrote about 5 lines on why it may be justified and about a page on why it's not acceptable.

Anyway, is religion a suitable basis for moral reasoning?

I think people may justify it by claiming that they are following their holy teachings and doing God's will. Some may also argue that to act upon these teachings in moral dilemmas would be for the greater good anyway.

Personally, I think basing your reasoning in moral dilemmas on religious beliefs is dangerous, foolhardy and unacceptable. Not everyone will accept these beliefs, and so it is unfair to base moral reasoning on them. Religion should always be left out of situations involving moral dilemmas.

[luxemburg89]

Is this General Studies AS? we didn't get any interesting questions like that.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:50 am
Is this General Studies AS? we didn't get any interesting questions like that.
It is :D

On the other papers we got a question on nuclear power and one on whether or not the state should give compensation to those who've lost homes etc. in natural disasters. So all in all it was pretty good, I had a lot to say :P

[RevMARKSman]

I say, sure. But "moral reasoning" is BS anyway as it's an oxymoron. Prove to me that there's some cosmic scoreboard recording your every decision, or at least define "right" and "wrong."

[Tommy-K]

Well personally, I think that in moral dilemmas people should act for the greater good.

One example people give is that if there were a train hurtling towards five people tied to the track, but you could pull the lever and divert it onto a track where one person is laying tied to the track, would you pull the lever?

My answer would be yes, as it serves the greater good. The least amount of casualties (or deaths) which subsequently means more good for more people.

[Yardstick]

I'd say generally I also perscribe to a utilitarian view on morals.

However is religion suitable for moral reasoning? I'd say it depends. For the most part religion fits with most peoples morals. This could be due to an innate law of morality(according to C.S. Lewis) or perhaps religions influence on our culture simply shaped the morals we hold. In which case as long as the religion in which moral reasoning is being based occurs in the culture which is compatable with the said religion then all should be peachy.

[la-troy]

There is never a clear cut answer when it comes to religion.

It promotes ideologies and principles that can lead better understanding among persons and an overall better outlook on life.

On the other hand it allows for bigotry and ignorance. It solidifies differences in society and cause splits that can not be bridged. :(

I think as a Marxist the theory of dialectics should be applied to it. In order to make it more beneficial to society you need a opposite force that can lessen the negative impact of religion.

[luxemburg89]

On the other papers we got a question on nuclear power and one on whether or not the state should give compensation to those who've lost homes etc. in natural disasters. So all in all it was pretty good, I had a lot to say

Shit mate, we got crap stuff like council tax :wacko:

[RebelDog]

Tell them that religion is a suitable basis for moral reasoning for the 'bourgeoisie', but, where my own 'class interests' lie, it is useless, because it helps consolidate their position in society and keeps me in mine and such a situation is not in my class interests and so must be destroyed.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You can state categorically that religions don't offer any basis at all for moral reasoning.

They contain morals, certainly, but nothing like an argument for adopting them. Religions are fine if you simply want the ethical whims of millenia-old cultures, but you won't find any rationality behind them except that it is god's will. This is not an attempt at reasoning, just a declaration of superiority.

The question is either phrased badly or has a very obvious answer.

-Alex

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by STJ+May 27, 2007 02:17 pm--> (STJ @ May 27, 2007 02:17 pm)
Tommy-[email protected] 26, 2007 09:24 am


Anyway, is religion a suitable basis for moral reasoning?
No religion is a steaming pile of poo and shouldn't be used for anything. [/b]
Couldn't have put it better myself :lol:

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 26, 2007 11:29 am
Well personally, I think that in moral dilemmas people should act for the greater good.

One example people give is that if there were a train hurtling towards five people tied to the track, but you could pull the lever and divert it onto a track where one person is laying tied to the track, would you pull the lever?

My answer would be yes, as it serves the greater good. The least amount of casualties (or deaths) which subsequently means more good for more people.
Well that one's far too easy. Most good moral dilemmas force you to choose between things that are not so easily objectively distinguished, e.g.:

You and your best friend are stranded on a life raft with a fixed supply of water. If you both drink rations, you can both hold out for three days. If only one or the other takes rations, that person can hold out for a week. Suppose that the probability of being found within 3 and within 7 days is about equal and that both of you want to live.

How do you apply your "greater good for society" reasoning to such a situation?

Suppose five of you are spelunking a cave and become hopelessly lost. After weeks with no food, you are all starving to death. 4 of the 5 of you agree to draw straws to choose a person to be killed and eaten. The fifth refuses to participate. Now, the unlucky loser having drowned himself, the fifth person begs to be allowed to eat. If you deny him food, he will die.

How do you apply your "greater good for society" reasoning to such a situation?

In your own scenario, suppose the five people have no family and are all ditch-diggers, and the one person is a successful medical doctor with a wife and kids. Does that change your reasoning? If so, on what moral principles?

EDIT: Suppose the five people in your scenario placed themselves on the track voluntarily, so as to intentionally force the train to divert and kill the one person tied to the track. By your stated logic, you should still throw the switch because fewer deaths result, but would this not be obviously unjust?

[Ele'ill]

Personally, I think basing your reasoning in moral dilemmas on religious beliefs is dangerous, foolhardy and unacceptable. Not everyone will accept these beliefs, and so it is unfair to base moral reasoning on them. Religion should always be left out of situations involving moral dilemmas.

Do not rape, do not steal, do not kill etc..

Most people will accept these as being things you don't do, for the greater good of society.

A question I often ask is if I live my life with no understanding of say christianity, but in accordance to their 'religious law', do I still 'get to heaven'.

I don't do it for god, I do it because I believe in it. I don't believe I need a god because regardless if the god is with me or not i'm going to make the same mistakes as well as do the same great things.

It strikes me as weak when someone says 'I did it because i'm a christian'.

[colonelguppy]

probably about as suitable as any other basis.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:20 am

Personally, I think basing your reasoning in moral dilemmas on religious beliefs is dangerous, foolhardy and unacceptable. Not everyone will accept these beliefs, and so it is unfair to base moral reasoning on them. Religion should always be left out of situations involving moral dilemmas.

Do not rape, do not steal, do not kill etc..
The Bible also says that homosexuals should be burnt, blacks are an inferior race and that women are servants to men.

The majority of people in society would think these to be morally wrong.

[luxemburg89]

Do you reckon Moses forgot what 'God' told him on the way down from the mountain? He got down 9 of them - 'thou shalt not kill' etc... - but then forgot the last one - grabbed a stash of marijuana, then came up with 'thou shalt not covert thy neighbour's ass, yeah that'll do, it'll give future bible readers something to laugh about'.

Btw, I do know what 'thou shalt not covert thy neighbours ass' really means but I find it hard not to get really jealous of my neighbour because she really does have the most beautiful ass...

[RevMARKSman]

All you people who agree with me out there (particularly apathy maybe): What should I say to this person?


First: If the justification is self interest alone that simply means that the moral code is based upon and ethical system that holds self-interest as a sound reason to act. Something like: Whatever is best for you is the best choice.

I meant evil as in "ethically wrong".

Finally. This is not my argument. I am not a moral relativist. I firmly accept (nonreligious) justifications for a moral code.

I am really just trying to explain that wrong can simply be not in accordance with the rules, irregardless of whether or not the rules themselves have a sound ethical system behind them. And the argument I was presenting (though in no way subscribing to) was:

1. That which is in our self-interest is best.
2. Murder is not in our self-interest (or allowing murder/being murdered is not in our self-interest)
3.Our moral code is based upon that which is in our self-interest.

Therefore it is against (wrong in) our moral code to murder.

This just means that saying that you think everyone should act according to their self-interest doesn't eliminate the existence of right and wrong. It merely becomes the basis for determining what is right or wrong.

I am telling you that moral codes exist whether or not you believe in an absolute ethical system, because moral codes or just the rules part. When I said wrong I meant wrong according to the rules. It does not mean I accept the justification for said rules.

[luxemburg89]

Well you COULD (and I wouldn't quote me on this because my brain's not working well) stress this point:


I am telling you that moral codes exist whether or not you believe in an absolute ethical system,

He is suggesting that you believe in these 'moral codes' because this person says they are real but who is this person that he should know? If the moral codes existed then surely something as key to our existence as that would not be involved in a debate as to whether it exists or not. Moral rules are also subjective, they are the products of civilisation and societal influences (although certainly I think we are born with some moral beliefs - just not the rules). A good example of this is Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' but I won't go into that it'll require an essay in itself. If these moral codes rule supreme over us all they would also rule over the animals, yet do Lions in the wild suffer when they kill an Antelope? Does the Soldier suffer when he returns home having put to death his fellow humans? - No, he is decorated with medals. If these moral codes are so important - and are such an authority over us - why do they go out of the window at war time. It is also to be highlighted that rules do not exist, they are sentences imposed on people as dictated by those in charge - I'm afraid they, the rules themselves that is, have no physical manifestation - other than the enforcement of them by those in charge. Rules can be good and bad - some are there for our safety (i.e. sending someone who killed your mother to jail) and others are there merely to repress (until relatively recently the outlaw of homosexuality). If this makes no sense it's cos it's 1.45 am and I'm blabbering on lol, if it does, and its even slightly helpful, feel free to use any of it.

Best wishes, Lux :)

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

What are morals?

One has to define what a "moral" is, and if it is absolute, before one can even begin to think about the reasoning of using religion to base it on..