~~~ Morality v Religion ~~~

[Bill Wiltrack]

.














...................................................












.

[reasonvemotion]

What is "right". What does it mean.

[Impenitent]

obey your government masters religiously

-Imp

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








....................................................







Good point.


Um, you got me. I don't know what right would mean in this case.



Well played.





.

[ubermensch]

Historically, what was 'right' was a pre-socratic notion of fulfilment. Until Plato proposed good as a form, a thing in and of itself (understood as an external force). Christianity appropriated the moral 'good' as god. Until Kant comes along and focuses the good back to the person, the persons duty.

At this point, the notion of what is 'good' or 'moral' seems more like a language game than otherwise. Unless you assert good to be a thing in and of itself, and offer a metaphysical framework for that notion, then good can only be anchored to a material notion ( civic duty, utility etc.)

So perhaps what 'right' means is up for grabs?

For me, whats 'right' needs framing; what's 'right' in this scenario to achieve this purpose.

[Percarus]

Bill,

I can’t believe this forum (I am rather new here, regular in other forums), it is like conversing with children. Morality and Religion do not differ much as a higher sentience is encompassed by the ultimate ideals of morality, whereas mere humane morality is not! Secular morality (the morality code I assume is mentioned here) is fundamentally flawed in aspects of altruism. An altruist cannot co-exist in a secular morality world because society would be just using him/her, this in a case of ‘pure altruism’ only it would seem. This has serious ethical breach implications, and falls short of various established Ethical models. *Long Essay of Mine Should go Here*

Ubermensch,

What is right has already been established through eons of human sentient thinking, and logical deduction would indicate that if a God exists then indeed he would epitomize all of humanity’s ideal with chance of going a step further even – a visionary state of taking into account factors of time, the past and the future to be...

What is right certainly needs framing, and a great degree of awareness of all afflicted incumbents and the eventual notion of the ‘greater good’ should be considered with at least two different ethical models I know. However, the main dogma with secular morality, that is discussed by theists out there, is the acceptance of acts such as bestiality, homosexuality, willing violence (from both sides), and the such... Where religious morality in ‘general’ sets some more solid mandates. But the thing is this only on the strictest dogma out there, the future of religion is one of new age reasoning, after all, any individual is allowed to do wrong to their own selves through any of the pre-mentioned acts, it is a sin to oneself only, and if it does not impact others it is valid. Anglican priests have a very liberal interpretation of the bible (as do many other priests and Christians), and I tend to affiliate more with these sensible groups.

The OP comment stating that ‘religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right’ is completely ludricous... Religion is always about what is right, this not only from a humanity stance but from a higher more evolved sentience that does care. The concept of ‘secular morality’ is flawed, only slightly, just all of yas remember that...

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







......................................................................................





Thank you for replying.




Here at the Philosophy Now Forum EVERYONE has a place at the table. EACH opinion is equally valid.



The fact that you make sweeping generalizations in the exact opposite theme of this thread is something I admire.



I look forward to seeing more of your posts.


WELCOME to the forum!


.





.

[Percarus]

Sorry Bill, I was rather grumpy last night in relations to my personal life. Yes, I make sweeping generalizations, mainly because certain individuals elsewhere greatly insulted my faith - my apologies. I am biased, in a theist viewpoint, and there are very few Jesuit scientists out there - it is like fighting a battle for dignity solo.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


No - you're fine.



Keep-up the good fight.


Remember the battles outside cannot touch your faith that is inside.







.........................................................................................






.