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
x
Turn on thread page Beta
-
CheckReversal
- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to CheckReversal
- Visit CheckReversal's homepage!
- Thread Starter
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 1
- 21-03-2013 17:00
-
dlaiden
- Follow
- 12 followers
- 2 badges
- Send a private message to dlaiden
- Visit dlaiden's homepage!
Offline2ReputationRep:- Follow
- 2
- 21-03-2013 17:06
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 -
TaylorGang_4
- Follow
- 3 followers
- 12 badges
- Send a private message to TaylorGang_4
Offline12ReputationRep:- Follow
- 3
- 21-03-2013 17:06
(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
Posted from TSR Mobile -
miser
- Follow
- 134 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to miser
- Visit miser's homepage!
- Section Leader
Offline20ReputationRep:Section Leader- Follow
- 4
- 22-03-2013 08:44
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. -
- Follow
- 5
- 22-03-2013 08:51
LOL This is the most blatant 'Heres my homework question, can someone do it for me'
Can't believe you've got series replies! -
- Follow
- 6
- 22-03-2013 11:48
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. -
- Follow
- 7
- 22-03-2013 11:53
First of all, it's philosophy. Second of all, it's Kant. Third, do your homework yourself.
-
miser
- Follow
- 134 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to miser
- Visit miser's homepage!
- Section Leader
Offline20ReputationRep:Section Leader- Follow
- 8
- 22-03-2013 11:54
(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.
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: March 22, 2013
Share this discussion:
Tweet