Anything that requires religious justification is not moral.

My criteria for a moral act is whether or not it causes suffering. That isn't as subjective as harm. The subjectivity in my criteria is what is necessary suffering. I would deem something like punishing a child a cause of suffering. But sometimes that is the only way we learn. Not wanting people to suffer even if they have to or having empathy for them is a marker of a person with strong morality.

I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, just that I think a little differently. Please don't take it that way.

 

Charity is the most righteous act one can do. Jesus did not come to help those of faith, He came to help the faithless, the ill, and the poor.

If one is beating his wife and says it's his religion, this intolerable. All religions that harm others is false. A religion that doesn't harm anyone, yet is under attack or another force is trying to be rid of them, then like anyone or nation they have the right to defend themselves.

 

Righteousness doesn't apply. We ate disscussing morality. I don't care what is right to some clown's god or goddess.

No religion exists that doesn't harm anyone.

 

Christianity harms nobody. And you would agree with all the law's therein. The one you might not agree with, is "thou shall have no other God's before me". However if you look at all of man's history, we have always looked to a God. And it will never stop. Thus the meaning behind the words, "thou shall have no other God's before me", would be a good thing especially for people like you. At least you would only have one religion to deal with.

What other law would you not agree with in Christianity? And please don't say all of them without details.

 

I would rephrase your title as, "Anything that is moral needs no justification, religious or otherwise."

 

Yes that is a good phrasing. It focuses on the positive.

 

It means that your morality is not necessarily the morality of others. You are steeped in the modern, western ideas of right and wrong and assume that it's universal. Somehow, you, as the Western Man, are the pinnacle of virtue.

One could say the same thing about governments, "great" leaders", etc. But even if you and I hold that all involuntary aggression against peaceful people is immoral, does not mean that it is universally immoral.

Ironically, calling a thought process "dangerous" is a dangerous thought process. It often leads to the prohibition of the expression of certain thoughts. You apply some sort of strawman to me rather than just accept that this is a discussion forum in which discussion is to be enjoyed, not feared.

That implies that business is somehow bad, immoral, or corrupt. Frankly, I fear the state more than I fear religion. It is far more likely to kill people. Even the Spanish Inquisition was more a tool of state power than anything else.

 

I agree morality is subjective, but I absolutely do not agree that it's reletive

I wouldn't go that far. Western civilization has superior morality. It wasn't easy and it's still developing.

Religion is a form of government and leadership. So yes i agree, you just reiterated what I said.

That can be a good thing. If expression of a thought process is to kill the unclean, we absolutely must stop that expression.

How did I misrepresent your argument?

You accused me of presenting a strawman and here you did. I didn't imply that you inferred. My position is that business is genuinely amoral. There are ethics involved that make sure it doesn't become immoral or that if it does there is a code in which to correct it. That is relative.

In a secular society the state simply replaces the religion as the authority. The difference in a republic is the state is the people. That doesn't mean they are not to be feared. It just means that they can be swayed.