Religion and Morality

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Oct 11, 2017.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it fails to write a 500 page discourse covering every possible argument you can think of in the first post.
    Too late Kant already did.

    The Three Propositions Regarding Duty

    The teleological argument, if flawed, still offers that critical distinction between a will guided by inclination and a will guided by reason. That will which is guided by reason, Kant will argue, is the will that acts from duty. Kant’s argument proceeds by way of three propositions, the last of which is derived from the first two.


    Although Kant never explicitly states what the first proposition is, it is clear that its content is suggested by the following common-sense observation. Common sense distinguishes among: (a) the case in which a person clearly acts contrary to duty; (b) the case in which a person’s actions coincide with duty, but are not motivated by duty; and (c) the case in which a person's actions coincide with duty because she is motivated by duty. Kant illustrates the distinction between (b) and (c) with the example of a shopkeeper (4:397) who chooses not to overcharge an inexperienced customer in order to preserve his business’s reputation. Because it is not motivated by duty, the shopkeeper's action has no moral worth. Kant contrasts the shopkeeper with the case of a person who, faced with “adversity and hopeless grief” (4:398) obeys his duty to preserve his life. Because this person acts from duty, his actions have moral worth. Kant thinks our actions only have moral worth and deserve esteem when they are motivated by duty.


    Scholars disagree about the precise formulation of the first proposition. One interpretation asserts that the missing proposition is that an act has moral worth only when its agent is motivated by respect for the law, as in the case of the man who preserves his life only from duty. Another interpretation asserts that the proposition is that an act has moral worth only if the principle acted upon generates moral action non-contingently. If the shopkeeper in the above example had made his choice contingent upon what would serve the interests of his business, then his act has no moral worth.


    Kant’s second proposition states that “an action from duty has its moral worth not in the purpose to be attained by it but in the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon, and therefore does not depend upon the realization of the object of the action but merely upon the principle of volition in accordance with which the action is done without regard for any object of the faculty of desire” (4:400). A maxim of an action is its principle of volition. By this, Kant means that the moral worth of an act depends not on its consequences, intended or real, but on the principle acted upon.


    Kant combines these two propositions into a third proposition, a complete statement of our common sense notions of duty. This proposition is that ‘duty is necessity of action from respect for law.’ (4:400) This final proposition serves as the basis of Kant’s argument for the supreme principle of morality, the categorical imperative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_of_Morals

    I am an agnostic so when you introduce me to God, I will take God's deposition for you k?
    What does a biblical God have to do with objective morality or for that matter what does objective morality have to do with this thread?
    You may want to read the OP again for comprehension since belief is only 1 of several elements of 'religion'.
    Who cares? Its apipe dream to think that a nation will 100% lock step agree on every point from any religion.
    Atheists are running the joint, the moral of the story is money/power.
    Does that mean I cant use stalin, mass murderer?
     
  2. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You basically do a book summary of Kant's writings about morality coming from duty but don't actually show that objective morality, objective duty, or the like actually exists.
     
    crank likes this.
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I dont expect I would fair very well trying to upstage kant, he was pretty sharp.


    (a) the case in which a person clearly acts contrary to duty; (b) the case in which a person’s actions coincide with duty, but are not motivated by duty; and (c) the case in which a person's actions coincide with duty because she is motivated by duty. Kant illustrates the distinction between (b) and (c) with the example of a shopkeeper (4:397) who chooses not to overcharge an inexperienced customer in order to preserve his business’s reputation. Because it is not motivated by duty, the shopkeeper's action has no moral worth. Kant contrasts the shopkeeper with the case of a person who, faced with “adversity and hopeless grief” (4:398) obeys his duty to preserve his life. Because this person acts from duty, his actions have moral worth. Kant thinks our actions only have moral worth and deserve esteem when they are motivated by duty.

    Kant classifies it as someone acting out of duty/principle as having moral worth. He continues with:

    This final proposition serves as the basis of Kant’s argument for the supreme principle of morality, the categorical imperative.

    It can be a wide variety of matters as you can see, anything from not stealing, to a duty to ones self with self preservation. As I explained earlier a moral is a premise or action based on value or quality, the premise(s) being the personal moral prerogative(s) and fulfillment of the composite a persons moral prerogative(s) by actually performing accordingly is the persons 'religion'. This is how a moral would be constructed, no Gods required and how it becomes a personal religion. Now if more people agree and form a group the religion grows, eventually creating a culture unique to their religion, which gets passed down from generation to generation. No one can escape having a religion, the only thing that varies is the flavor, hence atheists and agnostics have a religion no different than anyone else.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  4. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    About the type of answer I would expect from one such as you. When shown to be wrong claim to not understand what is said even though you feel justified in attacking it, providing proof of your dishonesty. Claimed lack of comprehension is no actual excuse for you. If y0ou actually cared what others have to say you would educate yourself. As you refuse, it says all that needs to be said about you.
     
  5. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here you go again doing a book summary about Kant. Do you actually know how to debate? You have to present arguments to support your case. You can't just say, "That guy is smart, here is a summary of the stuff he said."
     
  6. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What are you inferring?

    Honestly, if I understood where you think I was wrong and how, I could shut you down, but since you won't afford me the privilege of explanation, or you are unable, sadly, I must end this with this, my last post to you. God bless.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you requested that I show moral objectivity exists, and I did, so whats your problem now?
     
  8. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I doubt that this is your last post as you have proven continuously to be unable to express yourself or to comprehend and answer that you do not like. Says an awful lot about you.
     
  9. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the one with the problem, a lack of understanding of what Philosophy is, it is just opinion, you have shown nothing other than the opinion of Kant.
     
    Distraff likes this.
  10. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems like what you are saying is that since some people act out of duty that this has moral worth and therefore objective morality exists. But the sense of duty is inherently subjective and there is no evidence of objective duty or that it has any moral worth. You just copy and paste philosophical platitudes that make a lot of assumptions based on the writer's agenda but don't actually prove your point or fill in the gaps and assumptions the writers make. You try to sound smart and intellectual by blindly copying the writings of the past but when asked to explain some problems with your sources or make arguments of your own you always fail very badly and are incapable of making even a basic coherent defense. You are an internet philosopher copycat and can't do the basics of philosophy like deliver coherent premises that don't have logical gaps and defend them from refutation.
     
    Arjay51, William Rea and RiaRaeb like this.
  11. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any explanation please
     
  12. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Alright, alright, don't get your knickers in a twist. lol just joking.

    You said or posted:
    Since you agree that religions tend to have differing morals, which I agree, then it seems like my morals are subjective, but they are not. Only my choice is subjective, because in all cases, I am required to believe and use those morals, to achieve some goal which I did not design. In atheism, goals are made by the one using the morals, but based upon philosophical ideas and carefully selected from different sources by the practitioner with subjective goals in mind.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2017
  13. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well? cheese and rice, you push me and yet don't respect me. What's up with that? lol
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am sorry you feel that way, got anything more than your feelings to talk about? Maybe something we can discuss?
     
  15. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about your lack of candor or consideration of the beliefs of others, which you do not display. For one who claims to be a moral giant this is proof that you are not.
     
  16. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't all this depend on God being a moral being, you know if the Bible is the evidence for this morality God is guilty of ten of the eleven Crimes Against Humanity we as a species wisely place as crimes so horrendous no nation or members of a nation or other group should be permitted to do them without the disgust of the civilized world.


    This covers this nicely enough the crimes are everything from murder and genocide to apartheid and torture ... really moral being you people have. :applause:

    Its odd we failing humans through our own efforts and facing horrors of the species rose to place upon international law and justice the principles to avoid such excesses and evils as far as we can, we fail sometimes, but I would never use many religious principles as moral ones even Hinduism has a disgusting caste system and many religions have failings. But some are far worse than others.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    you know a loony toon did some youtube when they claim God personally did anything!

    I would like to interview the God that guy talks about think you can set up a meeting with both God and the dood who did the youtube kolter?
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh? I never made such claims but I did describe how the formation of beliefs are a necessary element to the formation of morals which is ultimately ones religion, which ultimately forms a culture.


    Processes of believing: Where do they come from? What are they good for?

    Recently, cognitive neuroscience research addressed the human capacity of believing. We present evidence suggesting that believing is a human brain function which results in probabilistic representations with attributes of personal meaning and value and thereby guides individuals’ behavior. We propose that the same mental processes operating on narratives and rituals constitute belief systems in individuals and social groups. Our theoretical model of believing is suited to account for secular and non-secular belief formation.

    This will lead to our hypothesis that there is an important relationship between what individuals believe and the processes by which they do so and the more over-arching belief systems in a society. Specifically, we will address hermeneutic, linguistic, behavioral and cognitive levels of explanation.

    The issue of what a belief is and how beliefs are related to knowledge and rationality has been a fundamental issue in Western philosophy since the time of the great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. It raises the fundamental question of how to best understand the relation between knowledge and belief ( Armstrong, 1973; Helm, 1999; Miller, 2013).

    Consequently, when we say holding a belief is a human ability, we mean that believing is envisioned as a mental activity generated by neural circuits in the brain ( Boyer, 2003). Thus, a belief is to be considered as a putative brain product of a believing individual and in general is entertained as a belief by humans. We hypothesize that beliefs serve a purpose in that they are linked to personal intuitive judgments about the subjective certainty of mental constructs and sensory perceptions, which is in line with the claims of others ( Harris et al., 2008). Personal beliefs thereby function as part of the building blocks of intelligent behaviour ( Elliott et al., 1995; Howlett & Paulus, 2015; Taves, 2015). (getting weaker, ......of course 'internet' atheists take pride in lacking belief, just couldnt resist the temptation!)


    However, a concept of “belief” does not equal religious belief because people believe all manner of things, most of which are a-religious. Thus “belief” has to be understood generically, not only religiously. Consequently, “belief” is a proper characterization and is relevant for secular and religious domains.

    Thereby we emphasize the process character of belief: it is not a state; believing is a mental process. When understood this way, the notion of belief can be dissociated from concepts with static meanings, which are usually expressed in substantive terms like “belief,” “faith,” or “spirituality”.

    If we suppose the existence of a kind of “valuation system,” it may be best and intellectually sound to consider it as one of several aspects of a meaning system.

    People combine formal analytic and subjective affective judgments to arrive at propositions of the form “I believe that …”.

    To understand the process of believing, it is essential to understand how people attribute personal meaning to specific sensory perceptions ( Paloutzian & Mukai, 2017; Seitz & Angel, 2014). Perception and attribution of value (valuation) are two dynamic and reciprocal processes that are at work simultaneously to enable this. Both of these neurophysiological processes have been studied extensively.

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017
  19. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As expected, a babbling meaningless attempt to cover you false statements and the fact that you continue to spew other falsehoods just to try to make yourself seem important, and failing at that.

    If you truly had anything to claims as true, you would do so without trying your hardest to find others telling you how wonderful you are for citing their work. Nothing original about you, or noteworthy for that matter.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow such contempt disdain and vitriol all directed at me in your personal attack, not the matter under discussion! Im truly sorry science demolished your religious views. So much expertise and so much talent goes so unappreciated :(
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  21. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You got one thing correct, you are truly sorry. To be expected from one with an over inflated opinion of themselves as you have constantly displayed while attempting to change the discussion topic which you lost your argument on many pages ago. Nothing to offer but you over inflated ego and continuing your incoherent babbling nonsense.

    Btw fool, go back and read that I have no "religious views". You continue to misrepresent any who point out how foolish you are and try to make them conform to your desires. That is the definition of a personal attack.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you think about murder? rape? stealing? Did your brain shut off and go on tilt with those subjects? Anything goes maybe?
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    hmmm so you cant do any better than ad hom attacks huh.

    Religion is a set/system of beliefs, tough luck for you eh.....
     
  24. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has it occurred to your that people with religious views commit these acts as well as people who have no religious views?

    Doesn't really seem to be a factor.
     
  25. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113

    My statement stands as posted. You in fact have nothing but your own opinion, which you try to force on all others without apparent success.
     

Share This Page