Amazon.com Widgets

Is religion required to have a set of correct morals and values/ethics

Asked by: samuraimaster33
  • Only in their eyes.

    Because a specific set of beliefs is unique to the religion, in order to have that specific set of beliefs, you must be part of that religion. For instance, polygamy. For much of the world, it is immoral but to some religions it is a perfectly moral practice. Same thing for homosexuality. Many religions see not believing in their god as immoral so the only way to be moral in their eyes is to be part of that religion and comply with their religious values.

  • There is a subjective/personal relationship

    The world's ethical systems can be divided into three types or levels; level 1 is a morality of calculated egotism and pragmatic survival. Level 2 is morality of justice and equality; do good deeds because it is morally right. And level 3 is the highest and rarest; morality that goes beyond justice to charity, mercy, self-sacrifice and selflessness. Every major world religion teaches level 3 morality. That is the subjective connection between ethics and religion, how we learn it. Whether or not there is an objective or impersonal connection between morality and religion is another debate, I don't necessarily agree.

  • Religion is not needed for basic human morals and ethics

    This can be proven through many civilization who lacked a religion who practiced actions that prove that they had the same mentality as we have today(morals and ethics) this can be seen in my Eastern cultures and the native Americans in which did not have any religion to guide them through what is right and wrong but concluded by them selves and through free will on what is right and wrong creating a basic idea that humans created them selves without the help of a divine as what many religions claim

  • Religion does not determine ones ability to have a 'correct set of morals and values/ethics.'

    I do not believe that religion determines ones ability to have good ethics. Although religion may help to dictate what ones morals/ethics may be, not being religious does not take away ones capability to have good morals/ethics.
    Being religious (usually) comes with a set of 'guidelines' that may make ones morals more clear/apparent which could be used to argue that being religious helps one have good morals/ethics. (this is not to say that everyone of one religion shares the same morals/ethics, just that people of the same religion tend to have similar morals/ethics because of religions influence on ones beliefs) However, a lack of religion simply means that one chooses their morals/ethics with less guidelines. As a result, people who do not identify as religious may have a more diverse set of morals/ethics.
    In addition, the definition of 'correct morals and values/ethics' are not strict and can differ from person to person resulting in the possibility of one person belling that another person have an 'incorrect set of morals/ethics' and another person believing that it is 'correct'.
    In conclusion, I do not believe that one requires religion to have a correct set of morals and values/ethics on the grounds that religion does not affect ones ability to believe something.

  • Religion does not determine ones capability to have a 'correct set of morals and values/ethics.'

    I do not believe that religion determines ones ability to have good ethics. Although religion may help to dictate what ones morals/ethics may be, not being religious does not take away ones capability to have good morals/ethics.
    Being religious (usually) comes with a set of 'guidelines' that may make ones morals more clear/apparent which could be used to argue that being religious helps one have good morals/ethics. (this is not to say that everyone of one religion shares the same morals/ethics, just that people of the same religion tend to have similar morals/ethics because of religions influence on ones beliefs) However, a lack of religion simply means that one chooses their morals/ethics with less guidelines. As a result, people who do not identify as religious may have a more diverse set of morals/ethics.
    In addition, the definition of 'correct morals and values/ethics' are not strict and can differ from person to person resulting in the possibility of one person belling that another person have an 'incorrect set of morals/ethics' and another person believing that it is 'correct'.
    In conclusion, I do not believe that one requires religion to have a correct set of morals and values/ethics on the grounds that religion does not affect ones ability to believe something.

  • Religion does NOT have a monopoly on morality

    I cannot believe we are still debating this nonsense in the 21 st century!! Sigh, no humans do not need to follow a particular ideology in order to maintain a moral compass. Religions have certainly contributed to moral philosophy, but by no means does morality itself stem from religion. Myself, I am an atheist and claim to be a healthy moral individual. My ethics are no different than my Christian neighbour, or my Muslim friend. You do not need a man-made ideology to be a civilized human being and don't let any religion fool you into thinking that.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.