I watched a matt dillahunty piece on secular moral philiosophy and its superiority and I wondering if anyone can show me how reliious morality is superior

(September 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I watched a matt dillahunty piece on secular moral philiosophy and its superiority and I wondering if anyone can show me how reliious morality is superior

How do you determine 'superiority' of one morality over the other without presuming a particular moral principle to begin with?

(September 6, 2013 at 1:32 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I watched a matt dillahunty piece on secular moral philiosophy and its superiority and I wondering if anyone can show me how reliious morality is superior

How do you determine 'superiority' of one morality over the other without presuming a particular moral principle to begin with?

I was gonna say that (basically).

I think the morality of a person is based on the emotional motivation associated with their convictions. I don't think there's much about atheism that induces especially strong emotional motivations, but it's obvious that religion is capable of doing that. So I'd say the most moral people in existence are likely so because of their religious ideas.

However, I think on average, atheists have one less layer of justification to skew in their favor when they are going to do something that's obviously wrong. So I wouldn't give the point to religion overall-- only to those rare specimens.

(September 6, 2013 at 1:32 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I watched a matt dillahunty piece on secular moral philiosophy and its superiority and I wondering if anyone can show me how reliious morality is superior

How do you determine 'superiority' of one morality over the other without presuming a particular moral principle to begin with?

Indeed, it would be immoral of me to follow a system of morality that is not superior to all others. Since I am an atheist, atheist morality must therefore be superior to all others.

I'm not convinced that the system of morality is all that important. My secular moral position instructs me not to steal things, not to murder people, and not to cheat on my wife. The fact that these are all also part of Judeo-Christian morality doesn't trouble me in the least.

Put another way, although I believe moral behaviour to have evolved along with human beings, I'm not going to commit an immoral behaviour simply because it happens to be written down in some fatuous book cobbled together by a lot of semi-barbaric tribesmen.

That being said, I'm something of a fan of situational ethics. In another thread, I mentioned stealing food to feed a hungry child. We're I forced into such a positionn by circumstance, I would commit the theft without a backward glance. Similarly, although I value human life, I value some more than others and I honestly don't think I would hesitate to kill to protect someone I loved.

On the third point mentioned above, cheating on my wife is right out, since she once told me that if she ever caught me at it, she'd kill me in my sleep. Self-preservation trumps morality, every time.

Boru

(September 6, 2013 at 6:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think the morality of a person is based on the emotional motivation associated with their convictions. I don't think there's much about atheism that induces especially strong emotional motivations, but it's obvious that religion is capable of doing that. So I'd say the most moral people in existence are likely so because of their religious ideas.

However, I think on average, atheists have one less layer of justification to skew in their favor when they are going to do something that's obviously wrong. So I wouldn't give the point to religion overall-- only to those rare specimens.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that superiority of morality is determined by the strength of emotional motivations related to one's convictions or is it determined by the validity of those conviction? Ot are you saying something else altogether.

Most morality it appears to me, is based upon empathy. I can imagine the hurt to the victim of my immoral act and that seems to stop me.

I guess its why people that do not steal from others have less problem fiddling an insurance claim and the like. It harder to empathise with an organisation that with another individual or group of individuals.

I can't think of a single moral position for a religious person that is better, per-say, than that of an atheist - although I think the reverse is fairly easy to argue. Religious people constantly argue that it is the fear of God that keeps them in line. An atheist acts morally simply because it is the right thing to do. In fact many theists try to argue that atheists don't believe do they don't have to face the after-life repercussions of their actions.

Further, the tendency of religious people to ascribe anything that is good about them to God and anything bad to the devil appears to me to be a moral cop-out of the highest order.

All part and parcel of the loathsome features of religion that believers don't even see.....

(September 6, 2013 at 9:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm not convinced that the system of morality is all that important. My secular moral position instructs me not to steal things, not to murder people, and not to cheat on my wife. The fact that these are all also part of Judeo-Christian morality doesn't trouble me in the least.

Put another way, although I believe moral behaviour to have evolved along with human beings, I'm not going to commit an immoral behaviour simply because it happens to be written down in some fatuous book cobbled together by a lot of semi-barbaric tribesmen.

That being said, I'm something of a fan of situational ethics. In another thread, I mentioned stealing food to feed a hungry child. We're I forced into such a positionn by circumstance, I would commit the theft without a backward glance. Similarly, although I value human life, I value some more than others and I honestly don't think I would hesitate to kill to protect someone I loved.

On the third point mentioned above, cheating on my wife is right out, since she once told me that if she ever caught me at it, she'd kill me in my sleep. Self-preservation trumps morality, every time.

Boru

So, would you consider a morality where self-preservation is the standard for moral behavior to be superior? If yes, then the justification for this would be?

---

(September 7, 2013 at 3:51 am)max-greece Wrote: Most morality it appears to me, is based upon empathy. I can imagine the hurt to the victim of my immoral act and that seems to stop me.

I guess its why people that do not steal from others have less problem fiddling an insurance claim and the like. It harder to empathise with an organisation that with another individual or group of individuals.

I can't think of a single moral position for a religious person that is better, per-say, than that of an atheist - although I think the reverse is fairly easy to argue. Religious people constantly argue that it is the fear of God that keeps them in line. An atheist acts morally simply because it is the right thing to do. In fact many theists try to argue that atheists don't believe do they don't have to face the after-life repercussions of their actions.

Further, the tendency of religious people to ascribe anything that is good about them to God and anything bad to the devil appears to me to be a moral cop-out of the highest order.

All part and parcel of the loathsome features of religion that believers don't even see.....

This seems to be the most common moral principle presumed when considering morality - that it is based on empathy.

The difference is that the origin of human morality is the Holy Bible, from where, different groups took their own version of morality and branded it as their own.