September 3, 2007
-
Morals, Ethics, and Religion
Is Religion a necessary component of moral and ethical behavior?
Morals and Ethics are culturally determined, and what different societies call moral and ethical varies widely, both from each other and through time. Historically, much or the animosity between the ancient Greeks and the Persians was due to their widely varying definitions of ethical behavior. The Greeks admired deception and cunning while the Persians saw absolute honesty as a cardinal virtue. Remember in the West, we admire the Greeks, but while they were the ones who wrote our first histories. they really were often not very nice by our modern standards, and much of our present moral behavior has very different roots.
Religion is most often the Institutional framework for exposition and control of moral and ethical behavior, but in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society such as ours with often conflicting views of what's moral and ethical, other social institutional frameworks must be the determining guides. When the United States was founded, the several states wisely demanded that religion be separated from laws so that all might worship freely without restraint, but that also meant that religion could not influence lawmaking (at least not directly).
Instead, moral and ethical values were to be determined by consensus. When such consensus is lacking, other Social Institutions, such as Family, Education, and Government take over and attempt to re-define moral values so as to regain it. This puts a strain on them and as a result we often have widely varying definitions of "what's right", as we have seen in this era of rather dramatic social change. Some of us demand a more central role for religion while others reject all religious influence, but through this conflict, there does seem to be a core of consensus which includes:
Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Individual rights, Individual worth, Democracy, The work ethic, Private property, et al.While, some of these values can be traced to religious roots, most are not. They do, however, form the basis for our moral and ethical behavior. Our morals and ethics are perhaps more situational most of us admit, but they are based on pretty solid consensus and are pretty well universally understood and accepted.
Comments (17)
Hi!
RYC and responded!
Question: based on your post, it seems like you dont think religion is a necessary component of moral/ethical behavior. First of all, is this a true/accurate description? If so, What would our behavior look like if morality wasnt based on religion? If we didnt have the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious writings, would we act the same? I agree that there is a concensus agreement of what is good, and moral behavior, but I think that concensus is formed and based upon what religion/spirituality teaches us. I think religions have written down what the concensus is. Does that make sense? It is like the backbone... other social institutions may have grown around it, to protect it, and stemmed from it, but without religon they would have no centralization, which would as good as kill it, wouldnt it?
take care, and have a great day!
Brianne
RYC: Our leaders are not from this world. The details of why's and how's will be explained on my next post. I may be a little bit off on the date that an unknown planet will appear. You say you have a telescope, but sadly I don't have one. You can see it when you are at very southern part if the Earth- the south pole is the best place. Also, Dr. Robert Harrington said, "Planet X, if it exists at all, is most likely to be found, at present, in the region of Scorpius, with a considerably lesser likelyhood that it is in Taurus." If you see it, please let me know. Thanks.
As for your post, your moral and ethical propositions center on sociological aspects. Moral and ethical values do not always entail consensus; besides that, I agree on everything you say.
Brianne, I see religion as one of the great institutional frameworks societies use to include and control their members. There are six institutional frameworks in all - Family, Religion, Education, Politics, Government, and Economics - all human group behavior is determined by the mores and values interpreted by them - often in concert. Different cultures have developed different values based on members' consensus concerning the nature and structure they have given those six institutions.
Religious dogma is a social creation - how the particular society interprets its beliefs and channels them through the religious (or other) instutution.
You could as well say Relgion (or our society's definition of it) is based on morality and ethics as the reverse.
Demetrian: Reply to comments offered at your site at your site please. It gets confusing otherwise, and I'm confused enough already!
Moral and ethical values are, by defintion the result of social consensus.
Morals and ethics, much like language, seem to be firmly attached to the country/society in which they developed. It's not easy to translate a language because the language is related to the culture - if you are trying to translate the language to a very different language (one developed in a distinctly different culture), there are going to be many misunderstandings. I believe the true is the same with morals and ethics - that there are certain actions/codes/behaviors that are considered right and desirable because they worked well in the society/culture in which they derived. Take the action out of the society - it can seem quite odd, out of place - or just plain wrong. But, because what we grow up with is what we forever consider normal (at least in our heart of hearts) it's difficult to truly aclimate to another culture. We always feel truly at, "home" with those who understand why we feel comfortable doing the things we were brought up doing - it's hard (if not completely impossible) to change that.
Now, take a country like the US - so many people from SO many walks of life settle here. We try to have some sort of homegeneity - but given the nature of the beast (humans, that is) it's impossible to truly do so given that not everyone is a child when they move here. And the US isn't a small country, by any means - what's normal and good in one state might be considered downright bizarre in another - and yet it's the same, "country".
So, consensus must come into play - but if we include religion in on what is decided to be right/wrong/acceptable - well, who's religion? One would think that all religions would have the same basic tenets - but if that was the case, it seems to me that we wouldn't need so many different churches
Ha - I just realized I have no point
And even now searching for one, I still have none.
We all just want to be accepted for who we are - I think too many of us try to force everyone else to understand where we are coming from, and I for one don't know if that's really so critical (and likely impossible, given what I've already said about culture). Basic laws/rules/mores/norms need to be in place so that our society can function - but it's tough to balance having guidlines with intruding on the practices that individuals feel is their, "right" in this country (ie. freedom of speech, who to marry, even whether to immunize their children).
Yes, I know freedom of speech is supposed to be a, "law" - but is it really?
Oh! I understand your point now, much more clearly... I do have to respectfully disagree however... I understand that we use mores in family and other situations/places/institutions... but I think that the mores we use in those other institutions are ultimately born of religion... and they kind of filter down through it to the rest of the institutions. I dont mean to put religion ahead of all other institutions, but I do believe they all have their expertise.. their own purpose, and religions is morality. I think it is the root of it all. I think it is where we explore morality, and define it... Let me see if I can think of an example and I will post back...
Take care, and have a great day!
Brianne
Robyn, I think your point is about the same as the one I made. As to why there are so many different churches "The devil is in the details"
You are right Brianne, the Religious Institutional framework is the one that most often interprets moral and ethical behavior. The problem comes about in diverse cultures where there are several religions with different moral interpretations. Modern Canada is a good case in point where you have not only very different religious attitudes, but also firmly entrenched language differences between the Provinces.
Fortunately Canadians are fairly laid back, ehh?
Hi! Ryc and responded!
Question: exactly how different do you feel the interpretations of moral/ethical behavior by different religions/languages are? Isnt the big problem that they are so similar they are repelling each other in a chemical-like, like repels like manner? And is language even an issue either- I mean, how many languages has the bible been translated in? Besides, does anyone even read it anymore, or do they listen to others interpretation of it in church? How diverse is the human race.. really.. quantitatively? I think tolerance is the issue here, not diversity.
Take care and have a great day!
Brianne
I think different interpretations of moral/ethical behavior by different religions has probably caused more warfare and strife than any other group of causes. In our present day you need to look no further than the Abortion debate or the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts for horrible examples.
What moral and ethical values do you feel we have in common with Islamic fundimentalists?
Hi!
I totally agree with that statement, (about different interpretations of religious scripture leading to wars). I think that shows the power and fundamental role religion plays in determining the moral/ehical concensus of the people who subscribe to them. That was what we were originally talking about, right?
In answer to your specific question, when you say "we" do you mean you and I specifically, Americans in general, or Christian fundamentalists. Because I would think that Christian fundamentalists actually have a lot in common with Islamic fundamentalists. Do you really think they dont? Not only is their intent the same, but a lot of the rhetoric is the same, just in different languages, with different names for their icons. As for the rest, I dont think that we are any more different from Islamic fundamentalists than we are from Christian fundamentalists. I wonder too... I mean we all hold the same values, we all value freedom, life, we all want to feel loved and that we have a purpose. So those are specific values I think we all share. We just have different ways of expressing those values and different ways of getting them for ourselves.
Take care, and have a great day!
Brianne
By "we", I suppose I meant those of us who are not Islamic fundis.
There seem to be some almost universal moral values - maybe we could have a Socratic discussion based on them sometime- e.g. a prohibition on murder, care of children, etc. but some cultures, including Islamic, do not put much emphasis on individualism and liberty, as least as we define it. Fundimental Islamic religious law (Sharia) is so strict and constricting that even most Moslems probably could not live happily under it.
I think a discussion on universal moral values would be very interesting!!
I agree that some cultures, (I might specify fundamentalist cultures here, maybe?? in any religion or culutre) definitely do not seem to value individualism as it is defined here in the US, and they have a different definition of liberty. My sense is that they define liberty as submission... You are free if you submit to the will of your God (again, this could work in any fundamentalist religion; Christian, Jewish, Islamic... etc). So while they do not seem to value freedom as we define it here, they do seem to strive to achieve their own definition of freedom.
As far as being happy... Happiness is so subjective... I think a lot of people find comfort and peace in submission. In not having to make moral choices and having your moral code spelled out for you. In not being accountable for your actions. In the promise of redemption. It may not make you or I happy, we may feel oppressed. In contrast, however, the freedom and individuality that we need and thrive on may seem opressive to them. Too many choices, and being responsible for making them all on your own (and thus living with the consequences) may be oppressive and overwhelming to them. I dont think people choose to be unhappy. Lessons can be hard sometimes, and peoples perception of happiness is certainly different, but I think if we had our choice, we would all choose the path to our own personal greatest happiness. Whatever that might be (and whatever the consequences for the rest of the world).
You know, another good socrates cafe topic may be choices... the choices we make, how we make them, why we make the choices we do, how we deal with the consequences, something like that?
How do you define consensus?
Consensus is generlly defined as "General agreement as to opinion or feeling". In Sociology, the definition is a little more narrow:
Consensus is defined as group agreement without major dissent leading to group understanding and action. There is normally social consensus on a culture's basic values (Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, et al ) but there might well not be consensus on the value definitions or intrepretations. What holds cultures together is the continual attempt to reach cultural consensus at the basic level.
This is an interesting discussion. I am not sure that I have really completely digested it.
I found NikitaButterfly's comments on freedom interesting. I am not sure that I agree with her ideas about what makes us free. I am also not really sure that everyone in the US really values individual freedom. It seems to me that right now we have a fairly substantial number of people who want the right to tell others what they must think and believe.
I do think that there are really 2 kinds of morality. There is the morality prescribed by religion. Many people sincerely accept religious moral guidance. Many others give lip service to it but ignore it in their private lives. That may be an indicator that they do not sincerely believe in the guidance provided by religion. I am not sure that religious morality comes from consensus. To me, it seems to handed down by authority. I am not sure that that is always legitimate authority.
There is also social morality. I do think that that derives from consensus. I tend to think that it is a more powerful force than religion at times. There are those who give lip service to it, though, and do not really accept it. Some of those people are called criminals.
How do we know whether the source of our moral guidance is a legitimate authority?
Just wanted to say hello and hope all is well with you and your wife!:)
LMS, Thanks for the good thoughts - my wife is doing somewhat better.
Nance, The interesting thing about morality is that it seems to be totally determined and interpreted by your society. Religion is the institutional framework which most often handles this interpretation, but in our multi-cultural, multi-religious society we almost all hold to the "idea" of religion and have some religious beliefs, but our organized religious sects not only differ over moral interpretation, but even argue within themselves!
I think I'll write a blog on the concept of Universal Morals next week - stay tuned...
I loved your article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.