|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
 Posted - 07/08/2002 : 02:10:17
|
Poll Question:
My step-daughter is taking Religious Studies in her GCSE's (16 years-old qualification in Britain).
Idly flicking through her text-book, entitled "Today's Issues & Christian Beliefs", I found the chapter headed "Morality without God". These are the choices, apparently. Assuming you are not a believer, which one do you conform to?
Edited by - NottyImp on 07/08/2002 02:15:25
|
| Results: |
| Hedonism |
 [38%] |
12 votes |
| Ultilitarianism |
[34%] |
11 votes |
| Egoism |
[16%] |
5 votes |
| Communism |
[6%] |
2 votes |
| Nazism |
[6%] |
2 votes |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 32 counted »» |
Last Vote:
08/05/2004 18:01:22 |
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2002 : 02:45:28 [Permalink]
|
Nice to see the narrow view put forth by that. Huh? What have political movements to do with morality without a god belief. Wouldn't the concept of the philosophers be more to the point? One wonders if they were grasping desparately at straws.
---
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young |
 |
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2002 : 03:44:15 [Permalink]
|
> Hedonism
Nope.
> Utilitarianism
Nope.
> Egoism
Nope.
> Communism
Definitely not.
> Nazism
Of course they had to make this a choice!
The book, I think, is just screaming "bigotry."
You could use this bigotry to show that following a religion doesn't necessarily make one know what morality is.
And doing good things just to keep myself from going to Hell isn't morality, either.
Edited by - antie on 07/08/2002 03:47:38 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2002 : 05:29:00 [Permalink]
|
It is easier to believe than it is to think.
|
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2002 : 10:43:46 [Permalink]
|
None of the above. I am the lightning, the uber-Xevsch, the - okay, I'll stop now.
"Ethical hedonism" fits me vaugely, and I used to be a utilitarian - but utilitarianism is hardly a personal morality. Utilitarianism, as conceived by Bentham and Mill, is a sort of political morality. Hardly anything to be used personally.
So, "none of the above". At the moment, I follow my instincts.
Welcome moakley.
----------
Every problem has a solution. Only sometimes the solutions involve imaginary numbers and make my head hurt.
Edited by - Xev on 07/08/2002 10:45:36 |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2002 : 12:22:23 [Permalink]
|
I voted for Hedonism because then one can actually have some fun. 
________________________
Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7 of your life.
Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...
*whine*
Edited by - James on 07/08/2002 12:22:53 |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2002 : 18:50:53 [Permalink]
|
I would say that I favor an atheistic humanism, with a bit of existentialism and pragmatism thrown in for good measure.
I think that associating ethics too closely with morality is a big mistake. First, it is counterfactual--secular ethics, whether atheistic or not, has a long-standing, respectable history, dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks (in fact, most of what we know today as "Christian" ethics is actually the teachings of the Platonists and Stoics which were put into Jesus' mouth by the writers of the Gospels).
While, of course, there is no consensus among various non-theistic ethical philosophies, I have never heard of philosophers launching a holy war or instigating a witch hunt. We also seem to forget that it is the secular ethics and political philosophies of Enlightenment thinkers, who were desperately seeking to unbind themselves from the shackles of theocratic ideas, which gave rise to the values we hold so dear in our secular democracies.
I think that Socrates said it best when he stumped Euthyphro with the question: "Is it good because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is good?" That is, a rational and just code of ethics seems to be possible only if it can be conceived independent of which dieties (or mortal proxys thereof) advocate it.
"The amount of noise which anyone can bear stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity." --Schopenhauer |
|
|
|
Hobbes
New Member
USA
34 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2002 : 01:34:17 [Permalink]
|
I suppose it's worth noting that they didn't include Kantian ethics or virtue ethics in the poll. But that's beside the point. I suscribe to Bertrand Russel's idea, "Religion, as organized in its churches, is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world today."
Even though that quote is nearly a century old, I think it still carries a great deal of truth. I was raised in a Catholic atmosphere, went to a Catholic high school, and spent four years in theology classes, and my conclusion is that hardcore religious belief is based on fear, and is thus inadequate as a system of morals.
And Newton said, "y'= lim h->0 of [f(x+h)-f(x)]/[(x+h)-x], thus, Calculus was born, and Newton saw that it was good. |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2002 : 01:59:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would say that I favor an atheistic humanism, with a bit of existentialism and pragmatism thrown in for good measure.
Yes, I noted that Humanism didn't get a mention - maybe the writers of the book just thought it was too much of a threat to their agenda.
What I found fascinating was that I thought (naievly, perhaps) that Religious Education had moved on, and was now more a comparative study of world religions (with, I suppose, an inevitable Christian bias).
Not a bit of it, though. The clear lesson of the chapter on morality (although the authors are careful never to state it directly) is that there can be no morality without God. Less education, more indoctrination, as far as I can see.
Luckily, my daughter is a sensible lass and has already worked out for herself that the bible is a load of contradictory hokum. But I fear for more impressionable minds...
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily."
Edited by - NottyImp on 07/09/2002 02:02:07 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2002 : 02:58:40 [Permalink]
|
"There can be no morality without God."
What utter nonsence! Homo sap is s social animal, different from others only in form. All social animals have codes of conduct, be it a troup of baboons, a pack of hyenas, or a pod of whales. We, unlike the others, have an imagination. So, we have inflicted upon ourselves a long series of mythical deities that the species and the world could have fared better without.
I too, must go with, "None of the above."
f
Evolution is such a simple idea, almost anyone can misunderstand it. -- Theodore Dobzhansky |
|
|
|
Sven62
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2002 : 18:54:40 [Permalink]
|
They also left out Objectivism. Oh that's right... Rand is Dead!
When Ah say whoa... Ah meeeeean... WHOA!!
- Yosemite Sam as he clobbers the camel that refuses to stop galloping blindly ahead. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2002 : 20:07:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They also left out Objectivism. Oh that's right... Rand is Dead!
Nice try with the fancy name but selfishness is not much of a philosophy.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2002 : 03:32:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
They also left out Objectivism. Oh that's right... Rand is Dead!
Nice try with the fancy name but selfishness is not much of a philosophy.
Actually it is. That is why there was an option for egoism in the poll. Objectivism is a lot more then just selfishness, unfortnuetly not all of it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Robert
New Member
Korea
21 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 05:26:59 [Permalink]
|
WOW good choices! I can see that Britan is even possibly more narrow minded than America on the subject of non-believers. I'm sure if Bush had his way, The topic of non-believers would be simply illegal in schools.
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2002 : 07:29:28 [Permalink]
|
None really match. I'd go with hedonism, but since I'm at work and not at home still sleeping, I can't really claim that either.
You certainly don't need a god to have morality. From a starting point of equality, morality is a natural progression. Religion is a hinderance because it (they all do in one form or another) do not work from a position of equality. Some (the faithful) are 'more equal' than others. Since god prefers you, then so will the law if it's based on religious morality.
God's Morality: The Crusades, Inquisition, the Taliban, Al Queda, Salem Witch Trials, the 9/11 attacks, Israel's persecution of the Palestinians......
All these organizations or actions were deemed moral by the participants based on what 'god' has to say.
No remorse, No repent. We don't care what it meant. Another day another death. Another sorrow another breath. |
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2002 : 10:22:36 [Permalink]
|
Morality is based on theological considerations; ethics is based on humanistic considerations.
How about epicurism? Scarfing a couple of sliders and a shake is a hedonistic experience, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, the enjoyment of fine cuisine is epicurean.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
