Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you need god to be moral? i dont mind long winded answers. and remember to consider utilitarianism and cant + both sides of the argument
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Did you mean "Philosophy?" And in short, no. Morals are social constructs. God isn't necessary to construct them (the concept of God is often only used to enforce them). You can be perfectly moral without God. I believe in the existence of God, but my morality has nothing to do with a desire to get into heaven (which is, I assume, the basis of your bringing God into this).


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CheckReversal)
    Do you need god to be moral? i dont mind long winded answers. and remember to consider utilitarianism and cant + both sides of the argument
    It depends on a person's interpretation of God. People have varying beliefs which makes it hard to generalise morals.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It depends on your definition of morality. If your definition of morality is "God's will", then yes, you would need a god. If your definition is of another sort, then in most cases you do not. A lot of argument spent on morality is made wastefully because people do not share the same definition of it.

    Both deontological and utilitarian conceptions of morality do not require a god because they concern themselves only with the perspectives of other conscious beings - utilitarianism seeks to maximise 'utility' (i.e., the greatest happiness for the greatest number), and deontology determines ethical rules based on whether an action conforms to certain fundamental moral axioms (the Categorical Imperative). Utilitarianism thusly concerns itself with the consequences of actions (and is therefore considered to be under the category of 'consequentialism'), whereas deontology concerns itself with the actions themselves.

    My personal stance is that although well-being and suffering are experienced subjectively, to all subjects that can experience them, they are objectively good and bad respectively. This can be used to formulate the basis of a moral system if we suppose that morality is about promoting what is good and avoiding what is bad. This is how people intuitively operate when considering whether an action is moral and does not require a deity to impose it upon us, but exists as an implication of conscious beings' ability to experience a gradient in their quality of existence.

    Moral relativists would object here to inform me that I am wrong with my assertion that well-being and suffering are objectively good and bad, but these things are so self-evident that it takes a well-educated person to doubt them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    LOL This is the most blatant 'Heres my homework question, can someone do it for me'

    Can't believe you've got series replies!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I find that our morals are a product of our society (if this really is a homework question as Rybee suggests, you could say that that is a Relativist view). Our morals are drilled into us by our parents, teachers and others from a very early age consequently I don't believe we need to "have" God to justify our morals.
    However, if we look at the foundations of our society, many of the laws and rules from which we derive our morals (no stealing, murder etc) come from (it seems to me) a religious foundation, namely the Ten Commandments.

    The truth about our morals is that they will always be changing. In two generations time, meat might be outlawed (God I hope not, I can't live without bacon) in favour of vegetarianism because animal rights activist's persistent campaigning. It's not impossible- only a few hundred years ago it was considered normal to have a slave. Nowadays, that would be seen as immoral.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, it's philosophy. Second of all, it's Kant. Third, do your homework yourself.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by remrod)
    The truth about our morals is that they will always be changing. In two generations time, meat might be outlawed (God I hope not, I can't live without bacon) in favour of vegetarianism because animal rights activist's persistent campaigning. It's not impossible- only a few hundred years ago it was considered normal to have a slave. Nowadays, that would be seen as immoral.
    I expect that what will happen is that stem cell research will provide us with in vitro meat sources that are both cheaper and tastier than the animals themselves. At this point, it will be seen to be completely unjustifiable to continue the exploitation of animals in order to create a more expensive, inferior product. Not that it isn't unjustifiable already, of course.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 22, 2013
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.