OT: Is there morality without God?

DannyinJapan

DannyinJapan

Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,594
Here in Japan, they have these classes in grade school for the kids entitled "Moral and Ethical Education."

I asked a teacher, " You're teaching religion in school? That's horribly illegal, you know."

No, they weren't. they just told the kids what was right and wrong, but there was no reason behind it. The best they could do was to use the old national identity ideal. (racism)
"Good japanese people do this but they dont do that..."

Im not talking about legal vs illegal. Im taking about right and wrong, good and bad.
I cannot conceive of those words having meaning without God.

Any thoughts?
 
Osama and millions of his kind "have God". So did the religious authorities who burned people alive to save their souls. Do they have morality?
 
I was raised Catholic but I've never been strongly religious. I guess now I'm agnostic. I think, without God, that morality springs from the Golden Rule-
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
You know, empathy. That is why people with empathy and without a strict religious code can still be moral, and why some who are religious (OBL et al) and no empathy can be psychopaths.
 
It could be argued that those people do not "have God" and that their actions were purely political and or financial in motivation.

That aside, how do you teach a child that something is wrong even though its not illegal, without speaking of God?

It seems they cannot do it in Japan without heavy doses of brainwashing and racism.
 
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/cohen.html

The moral content of "God" is not revealed but rather constructed or interpreted and therefore not a "first source". Like positing "God" as the cause of all, inevitably it is either a circular and ultimately redundant creation or simply a blank palate upon which man or nature itself does the painting.
 
I appreciate that, but I dont want to argue whether or not God exists.
(I believe, FYI)

My question is: How do you teach a child right from wrong without the idea of God?

If noone is watching, noone gets hurt, and you don't get caught, then you can do anything and it isnt wrong. That seems to be how it works over here, anyway.
 
Does bushido, depend on not getting caught?
I think not.

Are only theists able to be Good
and to raise children to do as they should?
You can believe that if you live in a bubble
Or your head is made of wood.

Good people and societies many have been
and they found their truth without 'heaven'

Many a crime both cruel and odd
have been jusitified in the name of "God"

Right and wrong have been lived and taught
without threatening hell, and all that rot

But I suspect the inquirer has his answer already in mind
so I will not waste any more time
Either yours or mine
;)
 
I think true morality is when someone does good for the sake of goodness and not because he fears that a god will punish him otherwise.
 
For me True morality comes frow within, not from the primitive political control {Religion}

True morality doesnt come from fear of the all seeing eye, hellfire, or judgment day.

It comes from ones own positive sense of spirituality,nature,wisdom & community.

Fear of hellfire is not morality, It is just control of the potentialy unmoral by fear, that has nothing to do with real inner true morality.IMHO

Spiral
 
Agree with all above. Lame on my part, but we are about to get a hurricane and I have work to do. Liked what I read. tx.
 
HJK,
I dont know how you got bushido mixed up with this, but never make the mistake of thinking that your average Japanese person knows what Bushido means or has even read the book "bushido." The Bushido code is really just a gangsters' handbook. You do whatever the boss says and that includes murder and worse. Bushido is the opposite of morality. It is "sanctioned amorality."

Now , to get back on track.

I dont disagree much with some of the replies, but how do we depend upon the "inner wisdom, spirituality, morality, etc..." of a 6 year old child?
 
as far as i am concerned there are usually different levels of arguing why to do (or not to do) something. one can argue that "i should not do this cause if i do i get punished by my parents (police, god!, etct etc)". that is about the lowest level of argumentation and usually applies to most people in general, and especially children. as you mentioned, danny, the concept of morality is too hard to grasp for children and even for most adults.
then there are different 'higher' levels of argumentation, including something along the golden rule (have to check, it's quite been a while, sorry).
but in general and for most people they do or dont do things because they fear punishment, be it god, be it the law, or your dad.

hope i wasnt too confusing,

regards, cheez

edit:
My question is: How do you teach a child right from wrong without the idea of God?
Click to expand...

1. How does the idea of God help you ? I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ here,
I just dont get it. What is the point, how can the child understand right from wrong in a moral sense with the help of God ?
 
DannyinJapan said:
My question is: How do you teach a child right from wrong without the idea of God?
Click to expand...

I didn't have a religious upbringing, and currently I guess I'm agnostic, I just don't care about religion. Neither did I care about religion when I was very young. Yet, when I did something wrong, I still felt awful about it, even if nobody found out. If anyone did find out, certainly, any punishment my parents might have given me was not as bad as the feelings I had from doing it. I don't think you need religion to teach kids what is right or wrong, at least, my parents didn't.
 
" How does the idea of God help you ?"

when a 6 yr old asks "why?"

You could say" well, it is nice to do this for other people."

the 6 yr old says" i dont care about them."

Fair enough, now what?

Let me change the thread tack a little:

If you visited your child's elementary school, and one of the teachers was teaching the "ethical and moral behavior"class,
Would you be surprised?
Would you be suspicious?
 
Perhaps the question should be,"Is there any reason to be moral without God?"

Or...

Can a governmental program effectively teach morality?
 
**********************
Answer #1
Of course. A system of ethics can be built on an axiomatic base. That base does not need to be the writings in a scripture or related to religion. The axioms support the system but are not themselves supported, so you can’t really argue with a person’s axioms. If you agree with the axioms then you can productively discuss whether or not certain ethical principals follow from the agreed upon axioms. Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy is a good example of a system of ethics founded on other than religious or mystical axioms. If you would like to peruse that example further you could get Peikoff’s “Objectivism” for an illustration of how such a system is developed. Rand rejects mysticism and develops this view:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." —Ayn Rand

**********************

Answer #2

There is nothing without God. God is everything.

**********************

I personally am not burdened with the need to be consistent.
 
Morals and ethics are tricky subjects when it comes to government funded institutions that are in charge of educating our youth. I myself, being trained more in behavior psychology look at morals as kind of a conditioned response coupled with our hardwiring to be collective and seek acceptance. A child will do anything once when he or she does not have the slightest cognitive inkling of what kind of moral or physical consequence will result. If a child hauls off and punches another kid in the nose he will get feedback from two sources and this will, IMHO, shape what he perceives as right and wrong. He will either sock the kid and an adult will run up to him, scold him sharply, and punish him telling him several times "We don't hit people!". This is a negative and the child will learn that this behavior will result in an unfavorable effect of being yelled at/punished. On the other hand, if the child is at a higher level of cognitive development and he strikes another kid he will receive feedback in the form of the other kid squalling. He will understand that a balled fist swung in the direction of another's nose precipitates into a great deal of personal power. He will recognize pain and will in fact associate the other child’s crying and tears with something he too has felt in the past. He will understand that that is not something he would want done to him. Guilt has also been associated with doing something deviant that separates you from the collective group. That is to say the physical personal gain is outweighed by the compulsion to belong.
After this long winded answer I suppose I should get to some kind of point. Do I believe that you need religion to teach children what is right and wrong? No. But I believe it is a very valuable tool. Morality is a hard concept for a child to grasp, but a Man that lives up in the clouds that loves you so very much that he wants you to be good is not. This is a valuable tool for children to have to reference until they understand the political world we live in. Until they learn that those who burn bridges (transgress upon others) will often end up alone and alone is not the most advantageous place to be.

Sorry for the long stupid rant,
Jake
 
Morality is a an agreement between all of the members of a group to act in a prescribed fashion. The group can be as small or large as necessary. It could be the mebers of a single church or it could be an entire nation.

How the agreement is made, either through a government or through an ecclesiastic body makes no difference. Western society has been bound by Christian ideas. Other nations and cultures have set up their contracts along different guidelines.

TO answer your question...morality does exist without "God". IN some cases it operates in leiu of "God".

Ethics are an internal mechanism that indivuals decide upon. They may operate outside the social norm depending on the circumstance.

IN tthe US we agree not to teach morals to our kids in school the way you describe. BUt we do expect our teachers to act in a moral way as they teach kids.That is part of our social contract, nationally. The Japanese obviously feel differently. They can and do teach their own moral contract to their citizens.

MOre pesos from Shane
 
"[H]ow do we depend upon the 'inner wisdom, spitituality, morality, etc...' of a 6 year old child?"

Try this.

I do not believe we do. We attempt to teach the young what conduct is appropriate in given situations. We hope that such teaching develops a person who does the "right" thing even when "no one" is looking. We call that inner compulsion to do the "right" thing by choice "honor."

It appears that not all societies have the same standards of "appropriate" behavior.

It also appears clear that not all persons within a given society agree on all aspects of what is "appropriate," but there is usually a consensus on core aspects of what constitutes "appropriate" behavior. There are sanctions of one kind or another for inappropriate behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top