Developed over many centuries, there are a lot of consequentialist ethical frameworks out there, such as utilitarianism and rule consequentialism. To live as a consequentialist is to ensure, in the words of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number. What counts as a "good consequence? The outwardly "right" act, according to religion, is somewhat irrelevant. For example, stealing is "wrong" in most religions. But is stealing from the rich to feed your starving children really "immoral" if you consider the actual consequences?
Examine the overlap of ideas between cultures to find common moral ground. Independent cultural overlap generally suggests that a moral principle is valid. For example, the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not uniquely Christian and is, indeed, echoed throughout ethical philosophy across the globe.
People everywhere agree that you should treat others with respect, indicating that this is a solidly human moral principle. The ideas outlined in The United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights are generally considered a worldwide, though incomplete, framework for basic decency and morality. Dive deeper into the moral writings of philosophers and religious thinkers.
While the reader may consider many parts of religious and philosophical texts amoral and lack a belief in any deity, that does not discount the positive ideas of those writers. The writers of such texts were definitely human, and their ideas can be valid outside of the context of religion.
Method 3. Understand that the human intellect is the greatest tool that we yet know and that your rationale is important. Understand that the presence or absence of a higher power has no effect on your moral code, unless he or she were to provide a code that is superior to one that you can deduce on your own. In this case, a moral and logical atheist would accept such a code without question.
However, despite its godly origin, such an atheist would still recognize the value in questioning this divine moral code in order to potentially obtain even greater moral right.
If such as divine code is perfect, then questioning it only serves to support its greatness and make it stronger. As such, one should never fear questioning a moral code.
Note that morality does not come from religion, but from communities who interpret religion. Yet, these are the prescribed punishments for such acts, according to Abrahamic texts found in the Old Testament. Since modern humans do not follow their religious texts to the letter, they must have some method for determining which prescriptions to follow and which to discard, which is ultimately where our morals come from.
Ask yourself -- is this action "good" because God tells us to do it, or is it simply a good thing to do. If the action is only good because God says so, then morality is nothing more than a checklist, and there are likely few Christians who believe that murder is moral just because someone talked back to their father. Remember that true moral goodness occurs because you want to help, not because you have to.
When something is a requirement, it's not actually moral anymore. Morality is about choice -- deciding to the right thing amongst many options. But if you're only doing the right thing because a religious leader or text told you to, or because you're scared of the consequences of hell, you're not actually being moral. You're being a sheep. Never forget that the mass murders of the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades were considered "moral" because they were apparently backed up by the Bible.
But anyone stepping back to think for themselves would have realized very quickly that senseless violence is never a good moral principle. Consider many of the clearly immoral positions of religions throughout history.
Of course, many of the adherents of these religions would argue that they are the most moral of all -- but something is a bit off when multiple religions with conflicting ideas all claim moral superiority. Recognize that, if morality was completely divorced from religion, a lot of the following events would likely not take place: Christianity-sanctioned slavery and treatment of blacks as "sub-human" in America.
Radical Islamic terrorist attacks, civilian beheading, and suppression of women's rights. Burmese Buddhists using human sacrifice to gain political power and control. Understand that highly religious communities often have higher rates of violence and crime. The myth that "God is the glue that holds society together" is a complete myth. In fact, most countries and states with high religious belief and participation are actually the most dangerous areas to live in. Meanwhile, highly secular areas are strongly correlated with lower homicide, rape, and poverty levels.
Of course, this is a statistical trend, and there are exceptions. However, even US states match these trends, with secular states being safer than most highly religious ones. Note that atheists tend to be less prejudiced, hateful, and against limited rights for minorities. Time and time again, it has been shown that atheists tend to be more tolerant than their strongly religious brethren.
The reasons are multifold -- lack of religion erases antiquated rules and morals, and there is no inter-religious hatred and rivalry that can spur so many atrocities like the Crusades. Either way, people who create their own moral codes, instead of waiting for someone to give them one, tend to treat others much more kindly. Remember to still accept the good of religious thinking and morality.
For all of its faults, organized religion is a major part of human society, and theologians of all faiths have pushed ethical and moral philosophy incredibly far, even if there are some mistakes.
The biggest mistake is usually buying into religious morality wholesale, without considering the faults. Thinking for yourself, considering each principle on its own and not part of an antiquated belief system, can help you stay spiritual and religious without feeling like your moral code is already prescribed.
Morality will often be a mixture of ideas from many different cultures and religions, and closing your mind entirely to theological thought is just as limiting as only considering one religion. Include your email address to get a message when this question is answered. Steven Pinker wrote an interesting article about morality for the New York Times.
Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0. Read, think, and discuss. These abilities are uniquely human, and the fact that we possess them requires that we use them in order to better conduct ourselves.
Consider reading the moral writings of atheistic thinkers, modern ethicists, and theologians, such as Dawkins, Rand, Aristotle, Epicurus, Mill, Confucius, Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, and the various authors of the Abrahamic and Buddhist texts, to list some of the original author's favorites. Is religion necessary for morality? Many people think it is outrageous, or even blasphemous, to deny that morality is of divine origin. Either some divine being crafted our moral sense during the period of creation or we picked it up from the teachings of organized religion.
Paraphrasing Katherine Hepburn in The African Queen, religion allows us to rise above that wicked old mother nature, handing us a moral compass. In the United States, where the conservative right argues that we should turn to religion for moral insights and inspiration, the gap between government and religion is rapidly diminishing,. Abortion and the withdrawal of life-support.
And religion has once again begun to make its way back into public schools, seeking equal status alongside a scientific theory of human nature.. Yet problems abound for the view that morality comes from God.
One problem is that we cannot, without lapsing into tautology, simultaneously say that God is good, and that he gave us our sense of good and bad. That lacks the resonance of " Praise the Lord! A second problem is that there are no moral principles shared by all religious people disregarding their specific religious membership but no agnostics and atheists.
This observation leads to a second: atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if their virtuous acts are mediated by different principles. They often have as strong and sound a sense of right and wrong as anyone, including involvement in movements to abolish slavery and contribute to relief efforts associated with human suffering.
One view is that a divine creator handed us the universal bits at the moment of creation. In the other dilemma, there is no lever or siding, but a bridge on which sits a very fat man. If this man is pushed and falls in front of the truck, it will be stopped and save five lives. The onlooker is too light to make any difference to the truck, so jumping himself would serve no good purpose.
But he is strong enough to push the fat man off. Should he do it? The vast majority of people, again from every conceivable background, said no. Peter Singer draws some conclusions from this that I do not want to do myself, but the important point is that people's moral judgments have far more in common than used to be thought. There was a time when people loved to emphasise the alleged differences between different societies and hence the relativity of all moral judgments.
But it seems we all inhabit a moral realm which we can recognise as such. This is no surprise to monotheists who believe that all of us, whatever we believe or do not believe, have been created in the image of God and this means we have an ability not only to think, but to have some insight into what is right and what is wrong.
In its most philosophical form, it is a belief in natural law, and in its most advanced legal form, a belief in universal human rights. Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov said: 'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted. Dawkins disagrees. Morality belongs to us as human beings. I agree too. I do not believe that a society without a religious basis for its morality will always collapse.
But I do think that the relationship between morality and religion is more complex than either Dawkins or religious believers usually allow. Take an analogy: someone hears a great piece of music and responds to it in itself. But someone else knows that the piece is part of a symphony and can be even more appreciated when heard as part of the whole in which it has a crucial place.
As human beings we can recognise and respond to particular moral insights.
0コメント