who is the more ethical - the religious / not religious?
are the "not religious" more free to be more ethical?
who is the more ethical - the religious / not religious?
are the "not religious" more free to be more ethical?
Not a very clear choice
- Some religions may be seen as unethical
- Many people are so called religious, but their actions do not match up with that religion
- There are religious people who are ethical and who are not ethical
- There are non-religious people who are ethical and who are not ethical
I think the major religions do push more ethical beliefs.
This might be helpful:
Main Entry: eth·i·cal
Pronunciation: 'e-thi-k&l
Variant(s): also eth·ic /-thik/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English etik, from Latin ethicus, from Greek Ethikos, from Ethos character -- more at SIB
1 : of or relating to ethics
2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
3 : conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct
4 of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescription
synonym see MORAL
Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy
...Just ask me...
Who decides what is ethical?
If you mean one judging ones own self, then I'd say Satanists probably have it easiest in that department. Of course I'm talking about sacrificing babies to the lord of darkness satanists they used to scare us into thinking were everywhere during sweeps week. Since anything goes in their religion, how can they be unethical.
In reality, our definitions of right and wrong come from outside influences. Those influences can be scriptures, other people or an interesting conversation with a pigeon in the park - whatever you choose to guide you. There are also unchosen influences such as family, government and society in general. While taking his neighbor's Ferrari for a spin while the neighbor's away may not be against Spexvet's own moral code, such things are generally frowned upon and he may not feel quite so ethical sitting in a jail cell.
There is a degree of flexibility both ways, too. If you don't like the moral code pushed by a religion, you may choose another or none at all. If you don't like the moral code of the society in which you live, you may either try to change their minds or pack up and move to where there are more likeminded people.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear brighter before you hear them speak.
i agree minus chipOriginally Posted by spartus
lets widen the debate to morals tooOriginally Posted by spartus
QDO1, I get the gist of your question. It's possible that a non-religious person could be more ethical/moral in a situation where a religion dictates what you must do. That is, assuming the religion is dictating something immoral/unethical. And we all know about "religious freedom." For example, there could be a group that worships the Perogie Monster, who dictates that all believers must steal, cheat and eat perogies. However, for the sake of this post, I will stick to what's real and what applies to me.
From my narrow view (Christian vs Non-religious), I'd say the religious have more reasons to be moral/ethical. If I have no official moral influence, I am left to do whatever suits me. Maybe business is bad so I'm going to find "creative ways" to increase my profit margin. [You can substitute any other bad behavior here] If it's all up to you to decide what's moral, how can you be accountable? How can you be sure you are balancing your desire to be "moral" with your desire to help yourself?
If it's NOT all up to you, and you're not religious, then you must be following society's morals, or someone else's morals. That, in my opinion is the worst way to make decisions.
What reasons are they?Originally Posted by Chairtime
Many self-espoused religious folk behave this way every day. How are they different? They have an "official moral influence" that they choose to ignore (the road to hell is paved with good intentions). Is that really different than having a set of values based purely on self-interest? Is it better than having a non-religious set of values that are closely aligned with your religious values, and keeping to them? Why do you think that any non-religious set of values would automatically be "bad"?Originally Posted by Chairtime
Isn't religion someone else's morals as much as "society's morals" is? That would be especially true if you get your wish that your religion's rules would be the same as society's rules.Originally Posted by Chairtime
And when you accept religious morals as your own, aren't you really deciding what's moral, on a passive level?
How can I be accountable? Society has mechanisms in place to let me know. Things like our judicial system and social interacting (or ostricizing).
...Just ask me...
Going to heaven is the main one.Originally Posted by SpexvetThey aren't different. Neither the religious nor the non-religious have 100% of it's members being totally moral/ethical 100% of the time. I interpret QDO1's question as "which group is more ethical?"Originally Posted by SpexvetI don't. But if you make up your own values, they are more likely to be designed to help you the most. After all, if there is no heaven, why bother? Because you WANT to be good? That's nice. You can still behave in a way that allows society to call you "good" while still getting away with criminal/unethical/immoral behaviour.Originally Posted by SpexvetExactly. Instead of actively deciding what's moral based on what helps you the most.Originally Posted by SpexvetSo as long as you are not found guilty of a crime, and as long as society doesn't say you're "bad," then everythings okay? Boy that leaves a whole lot of room doesn't it?Originally Posted by Spexvet
I don't think it makes a difference. As far as I know, all the religions (except devil-worshipping) are basically saying, "Be nice to each other". So the religions themselves are doing OK ethically.
People either follow the teachings to the letter, follow the bits they like, or aren't religious and make it up as they go along. So then it's down to personal ethics, which obviously are as varied as people are. And people can have opposing views on what is ethical, whilst still having the best intentions.
I would like to think that most people believe they are acting ethically, but maybe that's being a bit naive?:cheers:
How is "follow the bits they like" different than "make it up as they go along"?Originally Posted by Maria
What about those who aren't religious but have a set of values that they follow to the letter?
Aren't "religious ethics" as varied as religions are? And since people follow the bits they like, aren't "religious ethics" actually "as varied as people are"?
...Just ask me...
Thank you - they aren't different. People are people, and will behave poorly/sin whether they are religious or not. You've answered the question.Originally Posted by Chairtime
Ok, self-serving.Originally Posted by Chairtime
Using that logic, religious values must be designed to help that particular religion (itself) the most. Especially since you've acknowledged "Neither the religious nor the non-religious have 100% of it's members being totally moral/ethical 100% of the time." Maybe the "rules makers" have ulterior motives.Originally Posted by Chairtime
Yes, actually.Originally Posted by Chairtime
And you can't go to church on Sunday and murder on Monday? Or have sex with young boys? That's nice, too.Originally Posted by Chairtime
So you acknowledge that you are still deciding your own values. And since you decide, they must be values that benefit you most (as you said), and just happen to be the same as the religion you've chosen.Originally Posted by Chairtime
Room for the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc....;)Originally Posted by Chairtime
Last edited by Spexvet; 12-14-2005 at 12:05 PM.
...Just ask me...
The better question is to compare the ethics that people adhere to, not the people themselves.
Of course people are uneven in any group. That's not a newsflash, is it?
What about comparing the doctrines?
start a thread on thatOriginally Posted by drk
The religious are picking their favourite off a set menu, the non-religious are chucking all the ingredients they like in a crock pot :-)Originally Posted by Spexvet
They've still decided by themselves rather than learnt them as part of a religious teaching.Originally Posted by Spexvet
That is kinda my point, I think. Or at least it's what I was trying for.Originally Posted by Spexvet
Brilliantly said. Those that pick and choose the bits of their religion to follow, while ignoring others are, by any definition, hypocrites.Originally Posted by Maria
However, I'm getting off topic. But I had to highlight that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks