Is morality God's gift to mankind?

[Charlatan]

From what I've seen, most people seem to think that morality is some mystical instinct we possess only by the grace of a higher power. But it troubles me to think of morality being reduced to an arbitrary mandate laid out in some ancient holy book. And if it does just boil down to, "Don't do this because God says so," what can it possibly be but arbitrary?

It seems much more likely to me that, as human beings started to clump together beyond the range of their nuclear families, morality evolved naturally as a system of rules designed to hold the beginnings of society together. I think it's good to be moral because it's the reason society works, and society provides us with a lot of benefits we wouldn't have otherwise.

And if that's the case, if morality is logical instead of arbitrary, then why exactly do we need God to be moral? Why does he have to bless us with morality if we can reason it out ourselves? What's to say God is involved at all?

[Mustard]

I feel there are many gifts that we humans have over our animal bretheren, up to and including opposable thumbs and a large cranium.

I think morality just comes with the territory.

[Archangel]

What is your problem with holy books? What we consider ethics today is mostly based on the thoughts of an old pagan Greek, and you seem to have no problem with that; but as soon as it's a philosophical/metaphysical text adopted by a religious group, you're all up in arms at the suggestion that our paradigms might have originated there.

[Archangel]

Also, is free will banned in American religion? Because over here, Gioacchino da Fiore and Dante argued for it 800 bloody years ago, and it would answer your question...

[Mustard]

Also, is free will banned in American religion? Because over here, Gioacchino da Fiore and Dante argued for it 800 bloody years ago, and it would answer your question...
Have you ever been to or watched a mega-church gospel with all of that talking in tongues and other crazy sheeeeeeit?

With that question posed, I would say that free will isn't necessairly banned by American Christianity, but more or less just merely frowned upon excessively.

[DjAg]

Well, assuming there is a God (obviously), wouldn't life itself be considered the one and only "gift" and everything else is entailed within it, rather than there be any other individual "gift" or set of "gifts"?

EDIT:: And I have no idea wtf arch is talking about. I must be one of the dumb people in this thread. I will sit silently in the corner with pop-corn from now on.

[Archetype]

From what I've seen, most people seem to think that morality is some mystical instinct we possess only by the grace of a higher power.

Anyone I know? On GMF I mean.

What is your problem with holy books? What we consider ethics today is mostly based on the thoughts of an old pagan Greek, and you seem to have no problem with that; but as soon as it's a philosophical/metaphysical text adopted by a religious group, you're all up in arms at the suggestion that our paradigms might have originated there.

I think it's the way it's applied en masse.

[Charlatan]

… but as soon as it's a philosophical/metaphysical text adopted by a religious group …That's what I'm taking issue with.

[Mustard]

EDIT:: And I have no idea wtf arch is talking about. I must be one of the dumb people in this thread. I will sit silently in the corner with pop-corn from now on.
As long as you know your place...

[DjAg]

As long as you know your place...

Actually, I saw an excuse to eat pop-corn, so I took it.

[Archetype]

That's what I'm taking issue with.
What banner do you think morality flies under?

Our failure to discern a universal good does not record any lack of insight or ingenuity, but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms. Morality is a subject for philosophers, theologians, students of the humanities, indeed for all thinking people. The answers will not be read passively from nature; they do not, and cannot, arise from the data of science. The factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner.

[Archangel]

Well, assuming there is a God (obviously), wouldn't life itself be considered the one and only "gift" and everything else is entailed within it, rather than there be any other individual "gift" or set of "gifts"?
How very Augustinian of you...
EDIT:: And I have no idea wtf arch is talking about. I must be one of the dumb people in this thread. I will sit silently in the corner with pop-corn from now on.
Quite simple. If somebody says that Western political thought originated with Solon, everybody's cool with it. If you say that Western individual ethical thought originated with Aristotle, nobody has a problem. If somebody told you that modern critical thought originated with Kant, you'd probably agree. But the second you utter the notion that Western moral thought originated with the Bible, you're a religious fanatic.

It's a fucking BOOK. A pretty clever one at that, if you read it as a metaphysical work and not a graphic novel. Anybody care to guess whence thoughts usually originate?

[Mustard]

Anybody care to guess whence thoughts usually originate?
Jesus?

[DjAg]

Jesus?

Ted Nugent, dumbass.

[Archangel]

Why people look at the Bible differently than they look at, say, Timaeus bewilders me to this day.

[Archetype]

Ted Nugent, dumbass.
Oh, I thought it was the penis.

[Archangel]

Same thing.

[Mustard]

Ted Nugent, dumbass.
Ted Nugent doesn't hold a candle to Eric Clapton.
Why people look at the Bible differently than they look at, say, Timaeus bewilders me to this day.
Because people are actively told here that everything in the Bible actually happened (both New and Old) and that they are told to take every word in the Bible to be the literal word of God, thats it, end of fucking list. No debate, no critical thinking, just thats what God said, and you better fucking believe it, or else.

Of course were they to realize the history behind how the Bible came to be written, and translated, and re-translated, and re-translated, etc etc, then maybe, just maybe, people might question what they're being told. But I really fucking doubt it.

[Archetype]

What's eerie is most of these Church leaders spouting this stuff are nowhere near theologians. Political enterprise much?

[Archangel]

The one thing that I love about Europe is that to become a priest or a minister, you have to go through six years of theology at university.

Our preachers are all graduate students, while a majority of yours seem to be illiterate.

[Archangel]

Which obviously leads to a different perception of Christianity. I mean, just as I wouldn't like to be taught science by someone whose only qualification is that he vaguely understood The Origin of Species and agreed with most of it, I would object to being told about religion by someone who has no idea who Bernard of Clairvaux and Plato are.

Because you let idiots become ministers, people think that the entire concept of Christianity, which is one of the smartest philosophies out there - IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ A PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT - is stupid stuff for stupid people, and think that they appear more intelligent by simply distancing themselves from it. And in America, they may be right.

[Archangel]

Ted Nugent doesn't hold a candle to Eric Clapton.

Because people are actively told here that everything in the Bible actually happened (both New and Old) and that they are told to take every word in the Bible to be the literal word of God, thats it, end of fucking list. No debate, no critical thinking, just thats what God said, and you better fucking believe it, or else.

Of course were they to realize the history behind how the Bible came to be written, and translated, and re-translated, and re-translated, etc etc, then maybe, just maybe, people might question what they're being told. But I really fucking doubt it.

It's funny that you should have such a problem with Muslim extremists, because your "Christian right" (which is neither) thinks exactly the same way as the Abdullahs.

[Insomniac]

Which obviously leads to a different perception of Christianity. I mean, just as I wouldn't like to be taught science by someone whose only qualification is that he vaguely understood The Origin of Species and agreed with most of it, I would object to being told about religion by someone who has no idea who Bernard of Clairvaux and Plato are.

But the bible isn't Origin of the Species setting forth a scientific hypothesis, remember; it's a book, and books are open to interpretation. You've said before elsewhere that great literature speaks truths the author never intended, and this, I think, would fall under that. Knowledge of the aspects of Neo-Platonism in Paul's writings isn't a prerequisite to talking about him, especially considering how little we do know, how many gaps there are, and how much we're probably wrong. Education is beneficial, but not when you turn it into sheer elitism.

And Protestantism is supposedly non-hierarchical. God is supreme, the bible just under, but the Holy Spirit comes to any shepherd or fisherman it likes. "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise," and so on. Anti-intellectualism rooted in Protestantism is bad, obviously, but educating priests in Latin has never been a way to ensure their quality.

But that's outside the point.

The gift God gave to man was the capacity for morality. We aren't the rational animal, but we can be. We aren't good or just, but at least we can aspire to it. Laws, taboos, mores, evil, and good, too. They probably arose to help bind people together to people they didn't know well or had no close genetic kinship with. If the anarcho-primitivists get their way, we'll probably regress quickly and lose most of that when we're no longer taught it. All right.

However artificial or learned or forced morality actually is, as opposed to inherent, I don't see how it demeans morals or ethics whatsoever. What a glorious thing it is we save what appears useless or used up! and out of no self-interest, no less. More glorious still, then, if we have to work at it against nature.

Whether it comes from God or not, I call that divine.

[Archangel]

Holy shit, this guy is good.

[Da Raider]

God's gift was Love. Capacity for morality is merely a tool for seperating good from evil.

[Nosebuckle]

Since just about everyone has there own definition of morality, it's hard to say it's a gift from God. We cannot know God's morals for certain, because what we perceive as moral behavior goes much further and broader than what we can ascertain from scriptures or any other source.

[Genius]

Morality? I think God's gift to mankind was mortality.

[locke8]

i don't think god gave any gifts. from my understanding, morality is like a rule, rather than conduct. i think of it as a restriction not to do something, because some institution or society wants to say what is good and evil.
it makes more sense to me to have virtues. having virtues promotes the act of building good character. morals can be broken, yet forgiven. most of the time it goes unnoticed wether one isn't being true to their morals, or they get a slap on the wrist. if you are a decent human being with a set of good virtues, it is harder to break that character. morality is considered conformity to the rules of 'right' conduct. who decides what is right? all that should be required of someone is to be true to themselves, by holding virtues.
a distinction i can think of is concerning honesty. if you don't want to pick a friend up from work and you tell them so, you are being honest. but it quickly becomes considered unmoral because you are not doing something which as widely accepted as nice and normal conduct. but you don't have to pick him up. if you didn't want to, that's completely fine. you are rather sticking to a virtue of honesty which is far more respectable.

[Axel]

"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" ~Plato

The above dilemma puts forward two alternative positions: the first one implies that God's command sets an arbitrary standard which we have no moral reason for following; the second implies that the divine command is irrelevant to ethics and that ethical standards are established independent of religious considerations.

Obeying rules, tradition and dogmatic answers to moral questions do not make a person moral. Morality requires choices. Obeying rules because you think you should is not the same as making moral choices

Besides, a claim that "God is good" is an assumption. The Christian-Judaic god as described in the Old Testament would certainly not be a good moral role model.

I believe there is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.

[freegood]

I'm guessing that the OP is asking if having the sense of knowing right from wrong is a gift from God.

[Archangel]

Morality is, at its core, an advanced form of sacrifice. Basically, instead of just slaughtering a ram or something and be done with it, you sacrifice certain aspects of your personality in order to "please" whatever moral authority you hold dear, be that God, society, or those close to you.

[Charlatan]

Eww. Morality as sacrifice? If everybody pursued their own rational self-interest, the world would be a wonderful place. Rational meaning that it's not ultimately in your best interest to murder a business rival to get ahead, because if everybody did that, society would collapse and you'd have no business at all. That's what I think morality is about.

[Archangel]

If you look at it historically, the concept of morality developed right around the time the practice of animal sacrifice was on the wane. The Stoics were among the first to develop this notion - that the gods, being inside us, were better served by self-examination than by feasts and sacrifices - and Paul, in his speech on the Areopagus (Acts 17), re-inforces this notion.

And Paul, in his titanic effort to re-concile Platonism (later continued by Augustine), Stoicism, Epicureanism and Christianity, is pretty much the father of Western morality.

Aristotle was the mother, I guess, but he wouldn't truly come into play until the 13th century.

[Axel]

Eww. Morality as sacrifice? If everybody pursued their own rational self-interest, the world would be a wonderful place. Rational meaning that it's not ultimately in your best interest to murder a business rival to get ahead, because if everybody did that, society would collapse and you'd have no business at all. That's what I think morality is about.I agree with the above.

Besides, a claim that "God is good" is an assumption. The Christian-Judaic god as described in the Old Testament would certainly not be a good moral role model.

I believe there is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.Evolutionary biologist understand morality thru a principle of reciprocity. A revenge (aka vendetta, Arch) is a rational mean of prevention, repelling the other group or individual to commit wrongdoing against you or yours. A principle of retribution has been developed before morality: Christian Boehm has hypothesized that development of moral throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries.

[Archangel]

Yes, but that's a "do unto others (as in equals)" proposition. Hobbesian, basically. Morality, in our societies, also entails doing unto the less fortunate, those who are largely defenceless and couldn't harm you anyway; especially in Islam, but of course also in Judaism and Christianity, where caritas is the central pillar of Paul's theology.

[Axel]

Firstly, maybe I wasn't clear enough: I don't equal both terms, but agree with Boehm, that morality has developed thru the principle of reciprocity.

Secondly, charity isn’t generally considered as a part of morality, but of social responsibility. Besides, morality is a vague term, that can mean ethics in general, ideal code of conduct, or socially acceptable code of conduct itself.

For instance, I don’t always follow the morality code (in its narrowest sense), yet I consider myself as an ethical person. I’m in favor of solidarity, not charity: I’m ready to donate my money to someone who got in troubles by coincidence, but not threw it to some slacker.

[freegood]

The problem is that any one who cares about being a good person can consider himself a good person.

The whole Wall Street meltdown and Americans spending lavishly to impress their neighbors is about comparative morality gone awry. And of course, wall street traders and their ivy league education are the most rationally minded people around...

[Jeff]

You people use big words...

[Axel]

Jeff, you should either upgrade your processor to compute words longer than 6 letters or get a fuck out of this section.

[Jeff]

Jeff, you should either upgrade your processor to compute words longer than 6 letters or get a fuck out of this section.


Thanks for the heads up.

[Archetype]

Eww. Morality as sacrifice? If everybody pursued their own rational self-interest, the world would be a wonderful place. Rational meaning that it's not ultimately in your best interest to murder a business rival to get ahead, because if everybody did that, society would collapse and you'd have no business at all. That's what I think morality is about.

I disagree. If morality exists in any form it's based on selflessness, but I will say one thing, "rational self interest" does make for good stories.

[willydong]

morality is the ring in the nose of the masses. guess who pulls the ring?

[Archetype]

Farley?

[willydong]

exactly, we should all worship farley

[Satan]

lolhaha

[matelotindien]

From what I've seen, most people seem to think that morality is some mystical instinct we possess only by the grace of a higher power. But it troubles me to think of morality being reduced to an arbitrary mandate laid out in some ancient holy book. And if it does just boil down to, "Don't do this because God says so," what can it possibly be but arbitrary?

It seems much more likely to me that, as human beings started to clump together beyond the range of their nuclear families, morality evolved naturally as a system of rules designed to hold the beginnings of society together. I think it's good to be moral because it's the reason society works, and society provides us with a lot of benefits we wouldn't have otherwise.

And if that's the case, if morality is logical instead of arbitrary, then why exactly do we need God to be moral? Why does he have to bless us with morality if we can reason it out ourselves? What's to say God is involved at all?

I agree. Morality is something that is thrust upon the people by those in power. The Victorians caused all the bare breasted women to cover up whereever they went. Sob. Just imagine if they were still topless and walking around. The world would have been a much better place.