36 replies to this topic

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

We have two options here, and both lead to a dark corridor for the author If we accept that religion is something similar to the relation between men and God(s), and that morality cannot exist without religion, how can we explain Confucianism? It surely lacks an idea of “religion” in the Christian sense, even if it could be equaled, in some way, with the “religio” of Cicero (for example, the word “li” for “rituals” could be understood in a similar way); it has a “moral,” indeed, and no trace of the supernatural can be found in his traditions (and even if we can talk about Gods or demigods in Confucian traditions, moral does not actually depend on them).

There are some interesting criticisms of Christian morality by Neo-Confucian thinkers in Korea. Neo-Chonfucianism like to emphasize morality for morality's sake, and not for God's sake. This was made very clear in one speech made by an Neo-Confucian official: "The Christians always talk about hell and heaven...If a person is truly moral, they would not need a God to punish or award them. This rests on fear and only the small man follows this. The sages do good without concern of what will happen to them after they die, and hence they are truly moral by nature...if the Christian god exist, and has morals, then he shouldn't require people to believe in him in the first place, since the good should naturally be awarded because they are good, not because they believe in God."

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 24 March 2011 - 12:00 AM.

[mariusj]

Just to point out, most Confucian who do good thinks of an afterlife, but a literately immortality rather than a heavenly dwelling. Confucian needs punishment as much as Christian needs punishment to enforce good acts, rather than hell, it is the history that the Confucian fear.

[ghostexorcist]

Better late than never ...

Animal behaviorists specializing in wolves to apes have noticed that all social creatures have a system of right and wrong. Whether it be body language in the face of a social superior, or a female ape pulling the weapon out of the hand of a male who is about to go off to war. Apes are known to even seal peace treaties with a kiss. Psychologists have found there are two different kinds of morality: instinctual and rational. Instinctual morality harkens back to our animal and early human past when a split second decision would mean life or death. Rational morality came after the advent of settled civilizations when people had time to formulate what their particular culture thought was good or bad (different cultures have different morals). A good example of instinctual morality is something known as a “trolley problem.” Psychologists asked volunteers a set of questions. The first question involved a hypothetical situation where five people are walking on trolley tracks unaware of a runaway trolley approaching them. The volunteer is told that they are standing next to a rail switch, meaning they can divert the oncoming trolley. However, there is a homeless person on this side track off in the distance. They have to make the decision to save the five at the cost of the one. Ninety percent of the volunteers said it would be permissible. The second question had to do with the volunteer sitting on a bridge above the tracks. They see the trolley coming. They know the trolley can only be stopped by a large object, but the only object that is within reach is a fat man. The number of people who would throw him off the bridge to save the five dropped to ten percent. When the volunteers were asked to justify their answers, seventy percent couldn’t give a plausible reason. Why? Both instances are murder. What difference does it make? These types of split second decisions that cannot be explained rationally show that morality is not the product of civilized religious societies. It is inherent in our animal nature.

Edited by ghostexorcist, 17 June 2011 - 06:40 PM.

[Headrick]

I realize it pointless to mention this. But I think the original yahoo question/answer is quite ridiculous. It has been mentioned in previous posts there were "religions" which expounded moral virtues yet did not abide the western view of what a religion is. To this I agree.

As an athestist I must also say I do not believe any sort of religion is necessary for a concept of morality. I believe we derive our concept of morality based on what is most advantageous for us as a society. What is viewed as morally correct or morally incorrect is a result of changing social norms, what is acceptable or not based on a whole host of other factors. Racism might have been acceptable at a certain time because people were afraid of others attacking and killing them. ect

Many things used to be acceptable or not acceptable which we now feel differently about. It is due to an increase in knowledge if anything else. The only reason we can consider something as abstract as morality is our brains anyway. Is racism or sexism moral? At one time it was acceptable. God fearing peoples were and still act immorally. What about the death penalty? If only god can judge the sins of his people it is immoral for us to have capital punishment.

This could go on forever. My position is, we evolved as a species by using our brains. We evolved by making logical conclusions about the world around us and reducing the risks to ourselves, increasing our chances for survival. Only logic should be our moral compass. "Do unto to others and you would have them do unto you" Although I am not very well versed in Confucianism I feel this is probably a common theme in many belief systems regardless of deities

[Taran ap Dafydd]

Chinese philosophy already covered this topic rather thoroughly and came to the conclusion that, No, morality cannot exist without religion. Purely securlar "moralities" inevitably do more damage to the community and culture than religious morality. This was a relatively early conclusion of the overall debate that was triggered by the first Ming Emperor's instruction to the philosophers and scholars of China: "Our culture is corrupt and immoral. Fix it." Or words to that effect.

The core of secular "moralities" is that even if there is one perfect, objective truth, we can't see it, so we must accept all other views and interpretations of it that others have ("truth is what you make it" aka: relativism).
During the Ming Dynasty, there was great debate on this exact topic, and it was with the debate's conclusion being that, Yes, there is one, perfect, objective TRUTH and that true morality is adhering to it (as best we can for we are imperfect beings and can not perfectly discern the Truth), and that, if there is no God, there needs to be, that the Jacobin Christians showed up and promptly converted half the populace.

It is a rather incredible course of study and I have only touched the perimeter of it.

[Taran ap Dafydd]

Logic as the basis of morality demands such horrors as eugenics. Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Logic invariably sacrifices the few regardless of how minimal the gain for the many might be. Logic is, imo, the absolute Worst basis for morality in history. It inebitably leads to evil.
It has its place, mind, but that place should never be as the core of morality.

"The Christians always talk about hell and heaven...If a person is truly moral, they would not need a God to punish or award them. This rests on fear and only the small man follows this. The sages do good without concern of what will happen to them after they die, and hence they are truly moral by nature...if the Christian god exist, and has morals, then he shouldn't require people to believe in him in the first place, since the good should naturally be awarded because they are good, not because they believe in God."

That is Imperfect Morality, doing right because you fear the punishment of doing wrong or because you desire the reward for doing right. It's perfectly acceptable because you are still doing the right thing, but it is not what we aspire to in Christianity.
Perfect Morality is doing right because we love God and God asks us to do right. Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. This is the goal. Of course, as I said earlier, "Who's perfect?" Just do the right thing, whatever your reason for it.

The problem with the whole issue is, "How do you determine what is right?"
And that's where I refer you back to the Chinese philosophers of the Ming Dynasty. I can not say anything new nor explain it better than they did 400 and more years ago.

[Qin Wang]

I humbly think not. Not without spirituality or faith of some kind. not necessarily an formal/institutionalized religion, but spirituality or any kind of ''higher'' ideal is surely necessary when confronting moral issues. or else many people would be able to do ANYTHING simply if the law permits.

And I agree with the neo-confucians in Korea speech. if someone truly enjoys an harmonious society [not the current govt propaganda of 'hexie' ok?] and morality, they do it for harmony and morality sake, not afraid of being burned down in hell or suffering of some kind in next incarnation. thumbs up for korean scholars

And if people are immoral by their own nature, then they need something to control them. religion works fine and morality-based ideology is great for that such as confucian thought or Xun zi's view on morality.
if everything fails and the people are still disobeying,and chaos abound its time for some laws!