Religious decline does not equal moral decline

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jan 14, 2016.

  1. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,609
    Morality is not rooted in religion and religion matters less for moral values now than it did thirty years ago, says Dr Ingrid Storm a University of Manchester researcher.
    Her study found that religion is only related to some moral values, and more so in religious countries and when people do not trust the state.
    These findings are based on her analysis of European survey data over the period from 1981 to 2008.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160113101117.htm?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,822
    I suspect that religion thrives and garners believers thru the preaching of a false morality that manipulates thru shame and guilt and fear of punishment. The false morality is that of calling sin any natural drive within us. The drive for sex. The drive for relaxation. The drive for ego-gratification. The drive for pleasure of any type. This is how certain religions have retained a foothold thruout history, programming people from childhood that their own bodies are dirty and nasty and that they are of their very natures wretched and without value to anyone. It is a fake morality that runs on fear and guilt and drives people into a neurotic clutching of false hopes and delusions of atonement and conditional mercy. Morality has nothing to do with being ascetic and puritanical. We are truly moral to the extent that we are courageous, honorable, loyal, and honest from our heart of hearts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    I Wonder if morality is different to people at different age level?
    10---17 years old
    17--- 30 years old
    30 ---45 " "
    45--- 60 " "
    60--- 75 " "
    75--- 90 " "
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    It changed a bit. Long ago, 2000, 4000 years or more, religions were the big guidelines for living a "good" life, whatever that meant in regard to the cultural background (e.g. for some cannibals, "good" even might mean to eat a slain foe, to give the foe's soul a chance to live in the body of the winner. It's been a sign of respect. Letting a slain foe rot in earth and handing their soul to eternal damnation this way, would have been the worst punishement - just saying that what we consider a very bad thing, might be a good thing given a different belief and cultural background).

    Back on topic:

    Particularly in Europe there has been some development of ethics, independent from relgions. The "age of enlightenment" and the so called "humanism" have developed ethics independent from religion, and these days ethics are used as a base for moral values more than religious interpretations.

    Thus the influence of religion dropped since some (2, 3, maybe 4) hundred years and nowadays even a complete loss of religion wouldn't harm morale much, because societies are already used to the idea that morale needs to be backed by ethics, and that ethics are a more rational guideline for morale than religions.
     
  8. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Morals: Europa at the present had a morality on how to treat women . The middle East had a different morality in how to treat women . So the middle easterners young people as they migrated in bulk to Europa showed a complete disrespect for moral attitude toward women , So we can see here a window of morality
     
  9. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,151
    I think the young judge the world differently, based on the information they receive from the outside world--internet. Where I and others grew up on television, kids now digest a larger spectrum of information from afar. But even then, like the media outlets of my day, there are those who want to control what they see, thereby shaping their perspective.

    I personally believe the television will lose it's stature in the near future, being used mostly for the occasional movie, video game, and online surfing. What kid really watches the television without getting bored within the first 15 minutes?
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Nobody seems to understand what morality is. Everyone seems to confuse morality with political spin. Morality is based on the team concept. It is not based on the needs of the individual. Morality is also based on the efficiency of nature and not the waste of humans. Waste, inefficiency and individual subjectivity is better served without morality.

    For example, stealing is considered immoral. If you look at the needs of the team, if nobody on the team steals, then not only do your resources go further, but the entire team has one less thing to fight and complain about. This strengthens the team.

    Stealing may benefit certain individuals, who wants things without having to work. This lack of team effort, by some of its members, is not efficient for the team, since some have to carry the water for the thieves, who should be contributing to the team. Stealing also leads to defensiveness and even anger in the group, which then may divide the team and use up other resources; police.

    Ethical arguments, which attempt to challenge morality, will always come up with scenarios to justify stealing, because religion says this was immoral. The common argument is a man's family is starving, so is it stealing for him to help himself to his neighbors surplus to feed his family? This is still immoral, because the man can creates strife for the team, if he takes food without asking. The moral solution is for the hungry man to ask the surplus man if he can trade food for work.

    Many people don't mind if government steals the money of the citizens to give it to special interests. This is immoral if it creates strife and waste. Those who do this will attempt to spin morality into something it is not, so they can steal and call it a fee or tax.

    If you explain morality to people, as I have done, instead of the spin, surveys would come out different. People are reacting to questions based on misconceptions, so the survey ends up the way the deck is stacked. Morality is a rational system since anyone who is objective will come to the same conclusions in terms of maximizing the team with the least resource usage; less resources stresses nature the least.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Hence, I must despise myself?
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Morality is a system of social behavior that maximizes the entire cultural team, which is composed on men, women and children. It is not just a female team versus a male team versus a team of children and unborn. The modern definition is misleading and is not about morals but about ethics, which is where the team is less optimized in favor of special interests. Optimizing a subgroup does not optimize the team because it can create a dual standard; two sets of rules, that will less that optimize part of culture.

    Females can gain extra leverage over men if they are allowed to use sex appeal, without any liability. The pretty girl can get the males to open the door for her. Or it can allow her to avoid a speeding ticket. This may maximize the female team, but it does not maximize the entire team. In Muslim culture, women are not allowed to use sex appeal for special advantages that can substitute for work. They need to use character.

    When the Muslim men see western women, they assume these are women of no character, who will use their trump card; sex, like a tool or weapon; thief. The men feel, if they wish to compete they get to use their own trump card, which is the superior physical force of men. This can make the female open the door. This maximizes the male team. Both are immoral, since the team is composed of men, women and children, not just men or women.

    Despising yourself does not optimize the team, therefore this is immoral. Being moral means you need to think positive, so you can be your best, thereby becoming an important member of the team.

    Once the cultural team is optimized, the whole can become more than the sum of its parts. The extra will then trickles down and lift the entire team so all its members rise higher. Once a sports team become a champion, the players have a new pep to their step. They become more valuable during the next free agency.
     
    Edont Knoff likes this.
  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    Can an atheist be part of the team?
     
  14. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    What you have to offer ?
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    You can kill me and use my body as fertilizer.
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Why kill . That is no good , Life is an experience , like train ride , why deprive of the nice experience , eventually we all are going to experience death of our body .
     
  17. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    No, that isn't very beneficial for society. Being atheist is highly irrelevant - atheists even in very primitiv societies can still protect their fellows, produce food, or transport goods. Well, basically the same tasks that any other member of society can do, except for being a priest.

    So very very unlikely any society would make use of your offer. They want you alive and contributing. In the past the "everyone is equal" was seen differently - people have different talents and were best used in areas where their talents are useful. A successful team quite often is made from members who can do different things well.

    Diversity, I believe, is the modern catchphrase to cover that fact.
     

Share This Page