Moral Guidance

Safehands

With the departure of organised religions from our society, where do our young people go for moral guidance?

eviltwin

Their parents, their peers, society as a whole, from within.

Nick Park

The secularisation of our society paves the way for religions to genuinely offer moral guidance rather than wielding political power or attempting to control morality - and that is a very helpful development IMHO.

Manach

The OP's initial premise is somewhat awry in that the demise of organise religion has been proclaimed since the about the 1750s. To look at the broad historical trends, the malleability of how people perceived mores and morals estimates the individuals susception to the waxing and waning trends (offhand Handt's work). Thus having some institutional memory that promotes a more objective morality across the generations, which is a hallmark of such, suggests the Arnoldian tide is not quite here yet.

am946745

Safehands wrote: »

With the departure of organised religions from our society, where do our young people go for moral guidance?

I find it incredible in the Ireland of 2015 with condoms in sales in every store that HIV rates are climbing. We had marriage equality last Saturday, but if you are gay man who has sex you can't give blood. Not having sex is seen as a dirty word.

Black Menorca

Pope Francis has had a huge effect on me, in a very positive way.

RecordStraight

Manach wrote: »

The OP's initial premise is somewhat awry in that the demise of organise religion has been proclaimed since the about the 1750s.

There, and also the notion that you need organised religion to have a moral framework.

Manach

RecordStraight wrote: »

There, and also the notion that you need organised religion to have a moral framework.

The 20th century did seem to be a crest of waves for various notions, among them that.

RecordStraight

Manach wrote: »

The 20th century did seem to be a crest of waves for various notions, among them that.

Human society did just fine for 10s of thousands of years before organised religion, and societies without organised religion did just fine since.

The 21st century non-stop Islamic fundamentalist terrorist war (to add to hundreds of religious wars) would seem to suggest that organised religion is just one more way for people to try to inflict their power on others.

eviltwin

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by morality.

RecordStraight

eviltwin wrote: »

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by morality.

Indeed. Altruism is a basic human trait. People have been looking after each other and have had a sense of justice for countless tens of thousands of years.

Rules about killing people who wear mixed fabrics, killing those who don't share your beliefs and all those sorts of thing probably do require organised religion.

Manach

RecordStraight wrote: »

Human society did just fine for 10s of thousands of years before organised religion, and societies without organised religion did just fine since.

The 21st century non-stop Islamic fundamentalist terrorist war (to add to hundreds of religious wars) would seem to suggest that organised religion is just one more way for people to try to inflict their power on others.

The first paragraph does rather show a miss-understanding of the understanding of religion and how this has been part of the human condition since African Vealt (AFAIR from Wade's Dawning of Man) while the second seems to be both the standard of Atheist cliches 101 and fails in understanding of the issues of Middle east stemming for colonialism, oil, and 1000s of years of tribal feuds (AFAIR Bernard Lewis).
If an alternative moral framework to a religion is to be constructed, it must be done on a foundation of knowledge and not a mish-mash of cliches and straw arguments.

Nick Park

RecordStraight wrote: »

Rules about killing people who wear mixed fabrics, killing those who don't share your beliefs and all those sorts of thing probably do require organised religion.

So, which religion has ever had rules about killing people who wear mixed fabrics?

P_1

At it's core christianity has one key philosophical guideline, treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself. Not a bad one to be taking, no need for the enforced rituals, the judgement and the wish to control others. A back to basics approach wouldn't be the worst to taking. Most folk can take that guideline without the need for the added baggage that comes with organised religion

Nick Park

RecordStraight wrote: »

Human society did just fine for 10s of thousands of years before organised religion, and societies without organised religion did just fine since.

Please could you tell us which tens of thousands of years you are talking about? What evidence do you have of societies that lacked organised religion, or of how well they managed?

While you're at it, please tell us about these societies in more recent times where organised religion was non-existent.

Manach

P_1 wrote: »

At it's core christianity has one key philosophical guideline, treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself. Not a bad one to be taking, no need for the enforced rituals, the judgement and the wish to control others.

Fair enough and it would make a good foundation. Offhand a Jewish medieval scholar basically said something similar, with all the religious writings just commentary on that core principle.

eviltwin

P_1 wrote: »

At it's core christianity has one key philosophical guideline, treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself. Not a bad one to be taking, no need for the enforced rituals, the judgement and the wish to control others. A back to basics approach wouldn't be the worst to taking. Most folk can take that guideline without the need for the added baggage that comes with organised religion

Pretty much this. I'm raising my children without religion and this is what I teach them. I want them to have respect and empathy for people. That's it really. The rest they can be their own judge of, I don't intend to micro manage their lives and want them to reach their own conclusions.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

Human society did just fine for 10s of thousands of years before organised religion, and societies without organised religion did just fine since.

The 21st century non-stop Islamic fundamentalist terrorist war (to add to hundreds of religious wars) would seem to suggest that organised religion is just one more way for people to try to inflict their power on others.

Thus far the 20th century has been the bloodiest in human history.

More people were killed in human conflict in that century than every before.

The secularists attribute the unprecedented death toll down to more mechanised means of killing and injuring people. That is a factor. But what is the main factor behind the higher death toll was the intent to put various atheist / man made principles at the fore of respective societies.

Nazi Germany.
The Soviet Union.
Communist China.
Kampuchea.

The argument may be made that the population of the world was smaller during the 12th century for example, compared to the population of the world in the 20th century.

But the death toll of the population in the 20th century relative to the population in the 20th century, is far higher than the comparable 12th century population figures.

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

With the departure of organised religions from our society, where do our young people go for moral guidance?

Laws frame morality.

The only real debate is which morality, or rather who's morality, is the law framing?

I think in this country there was a serious rupture in morals/ethics in public life and commercial life in the 1970/80's.
A small minority may have been corrupt before that, but it appears that corruption grew expotentially from that period onwards.

Take the D.I.R.T. scandal.
People going out of their way not to pay tax and to hide income. What persuaded a large number of people to evade tax? Why, in a so called moral society, did so many choose to partake in illegality/unethical behaviour?

In a civic / ethical society, people obey the law, even where they disagree with aspects of the law. Generally the vast majority of people are comply with the law.

Moral guidance is usually written in the heart. At their core people usually can distinguish right from wrong.
A belief system should be able to better inform what the heart already knows. Whether a belief system does do that is another thing.

RecordStraight

Nick Park wrote: »

While you're at it, please tell us about these societies in more recent times where organised religion was non-existent.

An example of a society without organised religion is my immediate group of friends and my family. We get along just fine being good to each other without the threat of eternal damnation.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Thus far the 20th century has been the bloodiest in human history.

More people were killed in human conflict in that century than every before.

Are you sure about that? I'd be pretty confident that, given the population, other periods were much worse.

Secondly, do you think the devastating wars of the 20th century occurred because in 1914 everybody suddenly abandoned religion, or because of technological advances and international treaties that meant a great many more countries were involved than ever before?

(I won't bother going down Mantach's arrogant and unpleasant route of dismissing your arguments as clichés)

Peregrinus

RecordStraight wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I'd be pretty confident that, given the population, other periods were much worse.

Don't be too sure. Measuring conflict deaths in proportion to population, rather than in absolute numbers, the twentieth century was the worst:



This table only goes back to the sixteenth century, before which conflict figures from wars start to get a bit hazy, but even so I believe that the best estimates say that the picture is not very different for earlier centuries.

And, it should be noted, this table only counts conflict deaths. If we added in deaths from democides (the collectivisation famines, the Great Leap Forward, etc) the contrast would be even worse.

RecordStraight wrote: »

Secondly, do you think the devastating wars of the 20th century occurred because in 1914 everybody suddenly abandoned religion, or because of technological advances and international treaties that meant a great many more countries were involved than ever before?

Can't tell you how hinault accounts for the phenomenon, but I can say this; the popular notion that modernity, rationalism, secularism or the enlightenment are associated with reduction in violence or deaths is absolutely not born out by the evidence; it's a faith-based belief to which people cling in the teeth of the evidence. Part of the increase in deaths is of course associated with improved killing technology, but that's not the whole story; phenomena like terrorism, totalitarianism and fascism are very much philosophical products of the enlightenment.

One other point is worth bearing in mind. Increases in deaths due to technological "improvements" are partly offset by increases in lives saved due to improved technology. Up to about the time of the American Civil War, if you were shot in battle at all the likelihood of your dying was well in excess of 50%; if you were shot anywhere in the torso, well in excess of 80%. Whereas today, both figures are well below 10%. The increase in deaths attributable to technology is due to the net effect of improved killing technology over improved medical technology. The rest is due to more fighting.

Nick Park

RecordStraight wrote: »

An example of a society without organised religion is my immediate group of friends and my family. We get along just fine being good to each other without the threat of eternal damnation.

Your friends and family do not constitute an entire society. You live in, and reap the benefits of, a society where religion is commonplace. You appear to be making unsupportable claims, making it up as you go along, and then changing the meaning of language when you are called out on it.

Now, please answer the questions I asked earlier:

1. Which religion has ever killed people for wearing mixed fabrics?

2. Which societies in human history managed for thousands of years without religion and did well?

3. Which society in recent times has managed well where religion is non-existent?

RecordStraight

Peregrinus wrote: »

Don't be too sure. Measuring conflict deaths in proportion to population, rather than in absolute numbers, the twentieth century was the worst:



This table only goes back to the sixteenth century, before which conflict figures from wars start to get a bit hazy, but even so I believe that the best estimates say that the picture is not very different for earlier centuries.

Firstly, this appears clear evidence that technological advances played the greatest role in the increasing death tolls - unless we are shifting the 'decline' of organised religion back a long, long way from the 20th century?

Secondly, some historians attribute 70 million deaths to the Mongol conquests in the 13th century at a time when the population of the whole world was around 400 million.

Peregrinus

RecordStraight wrote: »

Firstly, this appears clear evidence that technological advances played the greatest role in the increasing death tolls - unless we are shifting the 'decline' of organised religion back a long, long way from the 20th century?

I would put it a long way before that, yes, at least in the western world. Once the reformation works itself out you have a situation in which, in Protestant countries, the church is firmly under the thumb of the state and, in Catholic countries, the state is much less biddable to the church than was formerly the case, so you have a significant decline in the ability of the church to wield power, or control how others wield it. Then you have the enlightenment in the 18th century, culminating in the establishment of entirely secular polities like th US, and in the French Revolution. And throughout the nineteenth century you have the rise and dominance of secular ideologies like of liberalism, nationalism and anticlericalism, and in due course socialism. And all this time, you've got a steadily rising death rate.

RecordStraight wrote: »

Secondly, some historians attribute 70 million deaths to the Mongol conquests in the 13th century at a time when the population of the whole world was around 400 million.

Fair enough; if that's correct it would represent a distortion of the pattern. I don't think it would do much, though, to change the overall trend.

(You'd also want to enquire whether the 70 million figure was conflict deaths, or overall deaths attributable to the conflict, including deaths from famine and plague. If the latter, then it's not really comparable with the figures in the table above.)

homer911

hinault wrote: »

Thus far the 20th century has been the bloodiest in human history.

Eh? Dont see how the 20th century can get any bloodier, seeing as we have been in the 21st century for quite a while now..

Peregrinus

homer911 wrote: »

Eh? Dont see how the 20th century can get any bloodier, seeing as we have been in the 21st century for quite a while now..

Thus far the 20th century is the bloodiest; there is still time for the 21st to turn out to be bloodier.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I'd be pretty confident that, given the population, other periods were much worse.

Difficult to think of bigger regional conflicts in centuries outside of the 20th century.

The conflicts of the 15th-19th centuries were tiny compared to 20th century conflicts.

One time I heard someone try to claim that the Crusades inflicted a far higher rate of killing relative to world population (400 million) than 1900-1945.
Given that the world population was 2.5 billion in 1945, you can see that the death toll alone from 1900-1945 are far higher than the Crusades.

RecordStraight wrote: »

Secondly, do you think the devastating wars of the 20th century occurred because in 1914 everybody suddenly abandoned religion, or because of technological advances and international treaties that meant a great many more countries were involved than ever before?

Better mechanisation certainly played a part in the higher ratio of carnage and death during the 20th century, compared to other centuries.
However the motives that persuaded man's heart have been there throughout time.
Mechanisation gives full vent to the expression of those dark motives.

Let's clear up something.
The morality of religion was replaced by the morality of National Socialism, or by the morality of Soviet Communism, or by the morality of Chinese Communism, or by the morality of Pol Potism.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Let's clear up something.
The morality of religion was replaced by the morality of National Socialism, or by the morality of Soviet Communism, or by the morality of Chinese Communism, or by the morality of Pol Potism.

Which of those moralities do you think guides me?

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

Which of those moralities do you think guides me?

I would hope that you don't ascribe to any of the moral systems imposed by those regimes!

The point is that each of those regimes created their own "morality"

The "morality" of each regime sustained and edified the actions taken by each regime.
The "morality" that each regime created unleashed suffering on an industrial scale which we cannot comprehend.

The death toll from WWI and WWII by themselves were bad enough.
Add the death toll from Stalin's purges, Stalin's starving of entire populations in the Soviet regional territories, the death toll from Mao's great leap forward, Pol Pot's death toll, and the 20th century is by far the bloodiest.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

I would hope that you don't ascribe to any of the moral systems imposed by those regimes!

The point is that each of those regimes created their own "morality"

The "morality" of each regime sustained and edified the actions taken by each regime.
The "morality" that each regime created unleashed suffering on an industrial scale which we cannot comprehend.

The death toll from WWI and WWII by themselves were bad enough.
Add the death toll from Stalin's purges, Stalin's starving of entire populations in the Soviet regional territories, the death toll from Mao's great leap forward, Pol Pot's death toll, and the 20th century is by far the bloodiest.

George Bush - an avowed Christian - started two wars during his term in office. The examples of Christian (and other religious) leaders and nations starting and engaging in wars are beyond number.

Wasn't the person who authorised dropping nuclear bombs on humans also a Christian?

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

George Bush - an avowed Christian - started two wars during his term in office. The examples of Christian (and other religious) leaders and nations starting and engaging in wars are beyond number.

Wasn't the person who authorised dropping nuclear bombs on humans also a Christian?

Goal posts getting shifted. There's a surprise.

Yeah, many leaders who claim to be Christian did bad things. They should know better, I agree.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Goal posts getting shifted. There's a surprise.

The goalposts are that without organised religion, we would act in immoral ways, right? I'm giving concrete examples of those following organised religion starting wars and committing atrocities.

hinault wrote: »

Yeah, many leaders who claim to be Christian did bad things. They should know better, I agree.

Ah yes, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy...

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

The goalposts are that without organised religion, we would act in immoral ways, right? I'm giving concrete examples of those following organised religion starting wars and committing atrocities.

Ah yes, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy...

It's not a fallacy though.

Those people should know better. I said earlier that they should know better.
They did what they did fully aware that what they were doing was morally wrong.

The replacement of one morality by another "morality" by man in the 20th century reaped what it sowed.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

It's not a fallacy though.

Those people should know better. I said earlier that they should know better.
They did what they did fully aware that what they were doing was morally wrong.

The replacement of one morality by another "morality" by man in the 20th century reaped what it sowed.

Which 'one' morality was replaced by which one other in the 20th century?

And can the notion organised religion as the sole moral force for good be given any credibility when self-proclaimed practicing Christians start wars and so forth?

sbsquarepants

We're born with a conscience - that's really all the morality you need.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

Which 'one' morality was replaced by which one other in the 20th century?

And can the notion organised religion as the sole moral force for good be given any credibility when self-proclaimed practicing Christians start wars and so forth?

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

hinault

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We're born with a conscience - that's really all the morality you need.

We need a conscience which is informed though;)

Gumbi

hinault wrote: »

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

Of course any such disaster was going to be bigger in the 20th century! We were far more advanced and the population of the world was after exploding since the 1800s...

Gumbi

hinault wrote: »

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

Of course any such disaster was going to be bigger in the 20th century! We were far more advanced and the population of the world was after exploding since the 1800s...

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Let's clear up some issues.

You condemn National Socialism?
Maoism?
Stalinism?
Pol Potism?

You acknowledge that the combined death toll of the "morality" of these regimes combined, dwarf the death toll of the "morality" of "christian" regimes?

Well that's one way to avoid the questions. I'll address yours when you address mine.

And - seeing as you were complaining about moving goalposts - the discussion is about organised religion, not specifically Christianity.

hinault

Gumbi wrote: »

Of course any such disaster was going to be bigger in the 20th century! We were far more advanced and the population of the world was after exploding since the 1800s...

Even relative to the contemporaneous population size, the 20th century death toll is far higher compared to any other previous century.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

I'll address yours when you address mine.

Have it your way.

Your goal post shifting earlier and now avoiding answering questions on this thread, renders our exchanges on this thread finished.

I won't be replying to you further throughout this thread.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Have it your way.

Your goal post shifting earlier and now avoiding answering questions on this thread, renders our exchanges on this thread finished.

I won't be replying to you further throughout this thread.

Pathetic.

Is it just my experience, or do other people often find Holy Joes to be the most unpleasant people in practice? It doesn't say much about their morality in my opinion if they treat the people they encounter in their lives in such a shoddy way.

sbsquarepants

hinault wrote: »

We need a conscience which is informed though;)

I'm not so sure you can actually inform your conscience. You can learn off a list of things that society deem permissible or otherwise but it doesn't effect your conscience per se. You either just feel guilty about something or you don't.
In society rules and laws evolve to match the conscience of the majority generally speaking - but there are always those who feel and act differently. Morality is a personal thing. Laws are a homogenised and standardised form of group morality, but they aren't morality in and off themselves. Your "immoral behaviour" could well be my "good weekend" (probably is actually:D)

RecordStraight

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Your "immoral behaviour" could well be my "good weekend" (probably is actually:D)

On the other hand, moral things according to organised religion - stoning adulterers, burning people at the stake and so forth - might offend the conscience of someone like you who does not have the benefit of an informed conscience...

hinault

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not so sure you can actually inform your conscience. You can learn off a list of things that society deem permissible or otherwise but it doesn't effect your conscience per se. You either just feel guilty about something or you don't.
In society rules and laws evolve to match the conscience of the majority generally speaking - but there are always those who feel and act differently. Morality is a personal thing. Laws are a homogenised and standardised form of group morality, but they aren't morality in and off themselves. Your "immoral behaviour" could well be my "good weekend" (probably is actually:D)

A friend of mine served as a peacekeeper in the former Yugoslavia.

His phrase is that the civil law and the moral law are the thin veneer which keeps us from acting like animals.

In his view even animals wouldn't lower themselves to do what many humans did to one another in that region.
That is how precarious and finely balanced human behaviour is.

Without adherence to civil law and adherence to moral law, decay sooner or later becomes the norm.

The more objective the moral law is the better.
And another important point is that the civil law must try to reflect as closely as possible that objective moral law.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

A friend of mine served as a peacekeeper in the former Yugoslavia.

His phrase is that the civil law and the moral law are the thin veneer which keeps us from acting like animals.

In his view even animals wouldn't lower themselves to do what many humans did to one another in that region.
That is how precarious and finely balanced human behaviour is.

Without adherence to civil law and adherence to moral law, decay sooner or later becomes the norm.

Of course, there is no evidence for this from anthropology. Interestingly, Yugoslavia was a country dominated by organised religions - Christianity and Islam.

Safehands

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We're born with a conscience - that's really all the morality you need.

I think that generally most religions teach that obeying the laws and not harming anyone is the way their followers should behave. There seems to be an attitude among a lot of younger people, that having Christian beliefs, not necessarily Catholic or Protestant, just Christian leanings, has a sort of stigma attached to it. There appears to be a growing belief that if it feels good, then it is ok.
Of course parents are the primary educaters. However, I know quite a few parents who's conscience is very elastic. So if that conscience is all you need then I think we may be in trouble, as a society.
I think that organised religions have really let their followers down, with their own very questionable moral examples. Their behaviour has been anything but exemplary.
Morality includes avoiding petty misdemeanours. A lack of morals can lead from minor infractions to the examples outlined by others on this thread.

sbsquarepants

Safehands wrote: »

. There appears to be a growing belief that if it feels good, then it is ok. .

I'd add one caveat -if it feels good AND it doesn't harm others - then yes it is ok. Why wouldn't it be?

Safehands wrote: »

. Of course parents are the primary educaters. However, I know quite a few parents who's conscience is very elastic. So if that conscience is all you need then I think we may be in trouble, as a society..

Conscience should be elastic. Context is everything.
Is it ok to box a stranger in the face - of course it's not.
What if that's a stranger you woke up to find standing over you in your bed?
Seems a lot less to feel guilty about in that case, doesn't it.

Safehands wrote: »

. I think that organised religions have really let their followers down, with their own very questionable moral examples. Their behaviour has been anything but exemplary. .

You've hit the nail on the head - if you're seeking moral guidance, maybe a billionaire paedophile ring is not the best place to look!

Safehands wrote: »

. Morality includes avoiding petty misdemeanours. A lack of morals can lead from minor infractions to the examples outlined by others on this thread.

It's who defines those petty misdemeanours that is the problem. If they're being forced upon you as is the case in a lot of places (used to be the case here but we thankfully wised up) - that's a much bigger crime than the petty misdemeanour was to begin with. Morality must be personal to be in any way valid. Otherwise it's just another arbitrary rule.

silverharp

Safehands wrote: »

I think that generally most religions teach that obeying the laws and not harming anyone is the way their followers should behave. There seems to be an attitude among a lot of younger people, that having Christian beliefs, not necessarily Catholic or Protestant, just Christian leanings, has a sort of stigma attached to it. There appears to be a growing belief that if it feels good, then it is ok.
Of course parents are the primary educaters. However, I know quite a few parents who's conscience is very elastic. So if that conscience is all you need then I think we may be in trouble, as a society.
I think that organised religions have really let their followers down, with their own very questionable moral examples. Their behaviour has been anything but exemplary.
Morality includes avoiding petty misdemeanours. A lack of morals can lead from minor infractions to the examples outlined by others on this thread.

The problem is that a society in transition might have issues for some people initially raised with the fear of the cosmic policeman and then having a gap in their ethics when they realise there isn't one.
I have no issues raising my kids in an atheistic setting. They don't have to make choices based on fear of upsetting a deity but based on values that with help them get on in society or simply engaging common sense based on risk etc. Future time frames versus present.