Are Christian Morals Superior?

[technolud]

So how do you rank competing moralities without a road map? You have to have lready  decided on a set of  what you think are correct moral principles in order to be able to pass any judgement.

I was using Ashera's definition from the beginning of the thread.

So, I was wondering out of those here who operate by a moral code that is good (what most consider good...not murdering, not committing adultery, giving to the poor, etc..),

I guess in my own mind I was thinking about how much people cheat me or others and how kind they were to others.  I don't have much expierence with murderers.

Just really trying to make the point that it seems like people that have to think about and decide what is "moral" do a better job of it then folks reading from a script.  Obviously this is all anectdotal.

[En_Route]

So how do you rank competing moralities without a road map? You have to have lready  decided on a set of  what you think are correct moral principles in order to be able to pass any judgement.

I was using Ashera's definition from the beginning of the thread.

So, I was wondering out of those here who operate by a moral code that is good (what most consider good...not murdering, not committing adultery, giving to the poor, etc..),

I guess in my own mind I was thinking about how much people cheat me or others and how kind they were to others.  I don't have much expierence with murderers.

Just really trying to make the point that it seems like people that have to think about and decide what is "moral" do a better job of it then folks reading from a script.  Obviously this is all anectdotal.

Ironically, Asherah's definition of what is good is what "most people" would think of being as good. So it is a kind of majoritarian morality, not one arrived at independently and individually at all. Of course, what is meant here is what most Western liberals think is "good".  Though I'm not sure that most liberals would necessarily condemn adultery, certainly not on all cases anyway. And why would you say adultery is wrong in any event?  Leaving aside that it presupposes marriage in the first instance.

[Ali]

Ironically, Asherah's definition of what is good is what "most people" would think of being as good. So it is a kind of majoritarian morality, not one arrived at independently and individually at all. Of course, what is meant here is what most Western liberals think is "good".  Though I'm not sure that most liberals would necessarily condemn adultery, certainly not on all cases anyway. And why would you say adultery is wrong in any event?  Leaving aside that it presupposes marriage in the first instance.

Fair enough, but don't you think that there is value in having a thought process behind "why" these things are good that goes beyond "god says so."  I would say that my morality is a mixture of accepting the things that most people agree are good, and discarding some beliefs that I was brought up to believe (example: homosexuality is sinful, a woman who sleeps around is sinful, et cetera) based on thinking through *why* an action is either good or bad or neutral or often maybe a little bit of both. 

[En_Route]

Ironically, Asherah's definition of what is good is what "most people" would think of being as good. So it is a kind of majoritarian morality, not one arrived at independently and individually at all. Of course, what is meant here is what most Western liberals think is "good".  Though I'm not sure that most liberals would necessarily condemn adultery, certainly not on all cases anyway. And why would you say adultery is wrong in any event?  Leaving aside that it presupposes marriage in the first instance.

Fair enough, but don't you think that there is value in having a thought process behind "why" these things are good that goes beyond "god says so."  I would say that my morality is a mixture of accepting the things that most people agree are good, and discarding some beliefs that I was brought up to believe (example: homosexuality is sinful, a woman who sleeps around is sinful, et cetera) based on thinking through *why* an action is either good or bad or neutral or often maybe a little bit of both. 

So what criteria do you use to decide if an action is bad?

[Ali]

It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?"  Then there are levels.  If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad.  It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong.  If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care.  If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help.  And so on.

[En_Route]

It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?"  Then there are levels.  If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad.  It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong.  If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care.  If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help.  And so on.

You seem to be advocating a form of consequentialism in which the effects  of an action on those who do not share your views may carry less weight. All varieties of consequentalism are controversial and problematic ( how do you weigh help against hurt and over what time-scale?).Nobody who argues for it actually adheres to it. Thus for example if you gave most of your money away to people in very straitened circumstances the aggregate gain in their happiness is likely to exceed the hurt incurred by you and your family, but this calculus is I assume not very appealing to you. In practice, people in relatively privileged circumstances such as ourselves, tend take that as the starting point and as a given.

[Ali]

It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?"  Then there are levels.  If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad.  It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong.  If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care.  If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help.  And so on.

You seem to be advocating a form of consequentialism in which the effects  of an action on those who do not share your views may carry less weight. All varieties of consequentalism are controversial and problematic ( how do you weigh help against hurt and over what time-scale?).Nobody who argues for it actually adheres to it. Thus for example if you gave most of your money away to people in very straitened circumstances the aggregate gain in their happiness is likely to exceed the hurt incurred by you and your family, but this calculus is I assume not very appealing to you. In practice, people in relatively privileged circumstances such as ourselves, tend take that as the starting point and as a given.

To the bolded: only if they're assholes.   

So okay Professor Smartypants, if the consequences of your actions are not a good place to begin to look for their "rightness" and wrongness", and since you presumably do not accept such a pat answer as "BecauseGodSaidSo", how do you judge whether an action is moral or not?   *Taps foot expectantly*

[technolud]

I accept the whole "morality is relative" argument.  I think Ali also makes a viable point, its not unreasonable to judge an action which harms another (hit them over the head with a bat in order to steal thier ipod) as "bad" or "undesireable".  For the extent of this argument lets equate "immoral" to "bad", as just defined.

The original question was whether Christian "morals" read un-badness, were superior to non-christian unbadness.  I still suggest not.

[Stevil]

I accept the whole "morality is relative" argument.  I think Ali also makes a viable point, its not unreasonable to judge an action which harms another (hit them over the head with a bat in order to steal thier ipod) as "bad" or "undesireable".  For the extent of this argument lets equate "immoral" to "bad", as just defined.

The original question was whether Christian "morals" read un-badness, were superior to non-christian unbadness.  I still suggest not.

What is meant by bad? Bad for whom, bad with regards to what goal? What are the consequences of acting badly?
Morality, good, bad, evil. It's all just fluffy fluffy, to be interpreted however the powers that be want.

[technolud]

Oh no! Not Stevil and morality again.  Aieeeeeee!

I am asking that for the purpose of this discussion, bad be defined as bashing in someones head for no particularly good reason. 

Who is most likely to do this.  Someone with "Christian Morals" or someone that thinks about consequences?

[En_Route]

Oh no! Not Stevil and morality again.  Aieeeeeee!

I am asking that for the purpose of this discussion, bad be defined as bashing in someones head for no particularly good reason.  

Who is most likely to do this.  Someone with "Christian Morals" or someone that thinks about consequences?

I wouldn't call that bad. Particularly pointless, yes. Something that I would wish society to discourage, yes, because not do so would make the world a more menacing and unpleasant place. I am afraid you cannot escape the clutches of the admirable Stevil  so easily. Bad or immoral are purely social constructs,which are not capable of verification or which possess any kind of objectivity or any persuasive power except to the extent that we internalise them. On the whole, it seems to me that statistically a Christian is more likely to inflict senseless violence than an atheist simply because there are so many more of them.

[En_Route]

It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?"  Then there are levels.  If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad.  It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong.  If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care.  If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help.  And so on.

You seem to be advocating a form of consequentialism in which the effects  of an action on those who do not share your views may carry less weight. All varieties of consequentalism are controversial and problematic ( how do you weigh help against hurt and over what time-scale?).Nobody who argues for it actually adheres to it. Thus for example if you gave most of your money away to people in very straitened circumstances the aggregate gain in their happiness is likely to exceed the hurt incurred by you and your family, but this calculus is I assume not very appealing to you. In practice, people in relatively privileged circumstances such as ourselves, tend take that as the starting point and as a given.

To the bolded: only if they're assholes.   

So okay Professor Smartypants, if the consequences of your actions are not a good place to begin to look for their "rightness" and wrongness", and since you presumably do not accept such a pat answer as "BecauseGodSaidSo", how do you judge whether an action is moral or not?   *Taps foot expectantly*

I don't. And with one bound he was free...

[En_Route]

Oh no! Not Stevil and morality again.  Aieeeeeee!

I am asking that for the purpose of this discussion, bad be defined as bashing in someones head for no particularly good reason. 

Who is most likely to do this.  Someone with "Christian Morals" or someone that thinks about consequences?

First off this is a false antithesis. Christians think about consequences. Everyone does. Atheists are simply people who do not believe in  a god. A lot of them probably subscribe to ideologies or philosophies which are as rigid and maybe not even as rational as some religions. I really have no time for this  fulsome self- praise some atheists are so ready  to heap on themselves.

[technolud]

I wouldn't call that bad

Yes, but the person that gets bashed on the head might.

[technolud]

Christians think about consequences. Everyone does.

I disagree, this is the very point we are talking about.  If a Christian, or member of any other religion for that matter, is following the scripture, they don't think about consequences.  They don't have that responsibilty or luxury.

I'm not saying all atheists are more "moral", or "less bad" or "gooder" or whatever you want to call it.  I'm just say that in my experience, people that have to find thier own way rather then follow a laid out path do a better job of it.  I believe in the abilty of people to make good choices if they try to.