Agnostic.com

5 4

Ethics, a prescription for human conduct is not the sole property of any religion. I think that all human beings have an innate sense of what is right and wrong. Initially, through our immediate family then school, college or university and employment and all the people that we meet along the way do we come to form a viewpoint of the world. It seems to me that the one defining characteristic between believers and rationalists is that historically there is a preponderance of evidence that points to the simple fact that a rationalist is less likely to kill you or make you into some kind of scapegoat simply because you disagree with his or her viewpoint.

ASTRALMAX 8 Jan 20
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Right and wrong are never fixed by "an innate sense of what is right and wrong" they are interchangeable dependent on circumstance.

2

Ethics are a codified practical morality for a particular vertical concern like a specific profession.

Morality is not only not the sole province of religion, it is actually not the province of religion at all. Morality is a work product of society. Religion has no direct role in morality, although it has an indirect role through its influence on society. Mostly, I'd argue, on a historical overall basis, a negative influence.

What religion does is appropriate morality from society, claim to be its inventor and sustainer, bolt on a few embellishments, and then critique everyone else for not correctly adhering to it. That way it can sell a faux solution to everyone's uneasy sense that they aren't good enough, which is a feeling that religion actually perpetuates.

Religion also claims the correct motivation for moral / ethical behavior is to please god, which is really seizing defeat from the jaws of victory, because that dilutes moral virtue. We should FREELY CHOOSE being a good moral actor because it avoids harm to ourselves and to others, and promotes the sort of civil society that sane people want to be a part of. What Abrahamic believers do is struggle to do the right thing against their vile "sin nature" and in fear of the displeasure and condemnation of their cranky deity and the irascible old men who run their religious institutions.

All of this turns a coherent system of determining how to coexist and cooperate effectively and rationally with others, into obeying a set of arbitrary decrees issued by god and his claimed earthly representatives. This speaks to your point that a person rationally pursuing morality is less likely to find you an existential threat than a theist simply obeying commands, should you disagree with them.

1

There are people out there who literally don't care about hurting others, etc., it is just very difficult for those of us with fairly normal psychological and emotional make ups to imagine this. (Inversely, many of these people imagine no one REALLY cares about hurting others--we just pretend to the same way they do to get along in the world.)

1

Totally agree as i view comments as a way to review my position and see if it passes the test to be my position.

1

Actually a rationalist/skeptic/atheist, is less likely statistically to kill you, rob you, rape you, or commit any major crime against you, for any reason. And morality in simple forms is found even in some none human animals so it has to predate religion.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:269950
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.