CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:34
Arguments:82
Total Votes:37
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 How are religion, law, and morality related? (31)

Debate Creator

Amarel(2350) pic



How are religion, law, and morality related?

A suggested debate from a long time ago
Add New Argument
4 points

Laws are codified moral standards. Common moral standards are the basis for genuine religious community.

Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

Laws are codified moral standards

I would add that laws are a statement of consequences for moral breaches.

Common moral standards are the basis for genuine religious community

I have previously considered your take on religion to be too broad and this seems consistent. Common moral standards may be fundamental to religious communities, but common moral standards are fundamental to virtually any community.

I would say ritual is the basis for religious community. Without ritual, whatever you have, even with common moral standards, is not a religious community. I may even narrow it further to spiritual ritual.

atypican(4873) Clarified
1 point

The focus on ritual is interesting. Shared "reverence rituals" (spiritual is way too vague for me) being what "makes a religion" is a logically tenable view as far as I can tell.

I'd like to critique YOUR response to this debate topic., :)

outlaw60(8861) Clarified Banned
1 point

Well look the Leftist says laws are moral standards but do Muslims abide by the laws of moral standard ?

outlaw60(8861) Clarified Banned
1 point

Common moral standards are the basis of the Muslim Religion ? You Leftist love your words but when it comes to common sense you are clueless !!!!!

1 point

Almost all religions are made up of two things: law and belief. Most of the followers of theses religions believe that these laws make up an objective system of morality.

NowASaint(1278) Clarified Banned
1 point

So you recognize no objective morality, but you declare religion to be wrong, i.e, immoral?

Jott(22) Clarified
1 point

I think that religion is a very important part of the world. I do recognise an objective morality but it is my choice to recognise that.

seanB(355) Disputed
0 points

Nope. There is no objective morality.

Choosing to believe in superstitions and stories of dubious authorship from barbaric parts of the ancient world isn't objective at all.

Amarel(2350) Disputed
1 point

There are secular theories of objective morality. That's not strictly religious.

NowASaint(1278) Clarified Banned
1 point

So there is no such thing as right or wrong, except that you assert you are right in saying there is no such thing as right or wrong?

I enjoy picking apart the diabolical thought excursions of atheists, but you will probably go off in a dirty mouth tirade long before I can make you look more foolish that your assertion of knowing there is no such thing as right or wrong.

Jott(22) Disputed
1 point

Well, some people believe there is objective morality and that is where they seek many of their morals and ways of living. It is up to you if you do not wish to agree with these people but it is very important that we do find some source of morality. It doesn't have to be a religious source. It could even just be something simple such as human empathy.

FromWithin(5436) Disputed
1 point

I agree, believing in theories of how man evolved from a single cell, and not even knowing how that first living cell magically appeared, is like believing in superstition.

The fact that from all the huge universe with billions of solar systems billions of years older than ours, and not showing any life as we see on Earth..... HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE NO OTHER LIVING CELLS DID NOT MAGICALLY HAPPEN IN OTHER SOLAR SYSTEMS. TO BELIEVE SUCH A FAIRY TALE IS BEYOND LUDCIROUS.

These solar systems billions of years older than are would be billions of years more advanced! Where is the signs of life?

God makes much more sense and would explain why there is only one Planet with life.

1 point

Hello a:

In their simplest forms, they're rules for living..

excon

NowASaint(1278) Clarified Banned
1 point

You can't live by rules or you would not have to die. The rule says you must die and not live.

1 point

Law is often influenced by the rules of morality, religion serves to teach those morals, and law uses the morals to enforce control.

NowASaint(1278) Clarified Banned
1 point

Religion serves as a means for people to attain power. It enforces laws which are immoral under the guise of morality.

Morals are right and wrong in reality regardless of religion.

1 point

The terms "religion" and "law" are too broad. Morality implies objective law in reality and religion changes neither objective moral law or reality. We all deserve to burn in Hell as lawbreakers, religion can't change that fact.....thought I would throw that in for the haters to get fired up......pun unintended

1 point

The law legislates morality while religion, although it may not be the standard, can give you one

1 point

Law and religion both come from the same source, communities agreeing on what is right and what is wrong. In old times people that collectively agreed on something, put in in a book and created mythos explaining why these morals are. In modern law, people come together and perform a collective vote to decide what is right and wrong. In short, morality is subjective to each individual person and to create laws many people come together and agree on the common factors.

Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

In short, morality is subjective to each individual person

What's the point of morality?

Is one persons notion of right and wrong just as valid as any others?

Stravick(32) Clarified
1 point

The point of morality what makes you feel good, mostly based on empathy for other people's feelings.

And the answer to the second question is subjective. You might think another person beliefs are just a justified while someone else might be repulsed those ideas. A society typically makes the final design.

When you kill a man, the law will say it's a human right abuse. You will be judged. Go to prison(Punishment)

According to religion you don't have the right of a creator to take life.

It's a sin. You shall be judged. You will go to hell(Punishment).

They are still very different though.

1 point

Hello,

Okay so the morality we have acquired today are based on what our parents taught us correct? so that morality usually comes from our religions regardless of which one it is, and in the USA at least notice that most laws are based on religion as well, in my opinion the separation of church and state are non existent. =)

Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

in the USA at least notice that most laws are based on religion

All civilizations have laws against murder and theft. How do you know that religion didn't incorporate those laws, rather than our laws being based on religion? For example, were there not laws against theft prior to the 10 Commandments?

1 point

Morality is a code of conduct, whether implicit or explicit. Law is the formal, explicit codification of morality with a statement of consequences for a given breach. Religion is primitive philosophy. Morality precedes the rest as it has been with us the longest.

As humanity developed, myths and legends used to fill in the holes of our knowledge were also used to articulate moral intuitions. These myths and legends were the foundation of religions and served as a codification of morals held (law). Thus, religion and law were once indistinguishable. To speak of the law was to speak of moral edicts according to a god or gods. When a ruler changed a law, he heard the voice of god (or got the approval of his holy class).

As education and literacy became more common, and esoteric knowledge became more broadly known, small groups and individuals developed their own ideas about religion. Philosophers began to understand the value of morality as independent from religion (though not usually from God). Similarly, the ruling class recognized that it’s laws had to be secular if they were to encompass people with differing religious views. Slowly, laws and legal systems were separated from religion, though not from fundamental morality. Which is approximately where we stand today.

To summarize, humanity has always had morality. We incorporated morality into our primitive philosophies of religion which served as law. We removed religion, but not morality, from law.

atypican(4873) Clarified
1 point

Morality is a code of conduct, whether implicit or explicit

granted

Law is the formal, explicit codification of morality with a statement of consequences for a given breach.

granted

Religion is primitive philosophy

if that's true, then conversely this would mean philosophy is "modern religion".

Morality precedes the rest as it has been with us the longest.

You think we conceptualized "morally right vs morally wrong" before "wise vs unwise"? I dont think it's particularly wise to seperate the two, though I will grant that legislation came afterward.

As humanity developed, myths and legends used to fill in the holes of our knowledge were also used to articulate moral intuitions. These myths and legends were the foundation of religions and served as a codification of morals held (law). Thus, religion and law were once indistinguishable. To speak of the law was to speak of moral edicts according to a god or gods. When a ruler changed a law, he heard the voice of god (or got the approval of his holy class).

Here you seem to recognize religion as a (albeit somewhat misguided) moral endeavor shaped by a class of highly regarded storytellers (not as ritual based like you assert elsewhere). Have you given any thought to how without a robust god concept, morality can be reduced (for many) to a matter of acting in a way that pleases the most powerful person(s) at any given time?

As education and literacy became more common, and esoteric knowledge became more broadly known, small groups and individuals developed their own ideas about religion. Philosophers began to understand the value of morality as independent from religion (though not usually from God).

Supposing that morality exists independently from the social systems through which morals are cultivated (religions) is not a form of new philospophical enlightenment but pseudo-intellectual delusion. Being so metaphorically challenged that one cannot make the connection between "theology" and "ruling logic" isnt any kind of advancement either

resistance to viewing religion and even god concepts as things that evolve along with us, actually retards their development.

Similarly, the ruling class recognized that it’s laws had to be secular if they were to encompass people with differing religious views. Slowly, laws and legal systems were separated from religion, though not from fundamental morality. Which is approximately where we stand today.

Do you think that state sanctioned moral indoctrination would futher seperate laws and legal systems from religion, dissolve the distinction between them, or have no effect ?

To summarize, humanity has always had morality. We incorporated morality into our primitive philosophies of religion which served as law. We removed religion, but not morality, from law.

We have always grouped up according to shared moral principles (articulate or not) this is the nature of religion and no laws have or ever will be enacted without essentially the same kind of unity. If religion has been removed, it was a mere semantic maneuver.

outlaw60(8861) Clarified Banned
2 points

Leftist don't have any morality if they do please put forth your claim

outlaw60(8861) Clarified Banned
2 points

Hey Leftist have you seen morality is the code of conduct when it comes to Muslims ?

Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

if that's true (that religion is primitive philosophy), then conversely this would mean philosophy is "modern religion"

Indeed much of early philosophy was simply sophisticated interpretations of religion. Ultimately, things can change enough that they are thoroughly different from their origins. Science used to be philosophy, for example.

You think we conceptualized "morally right vs morally wrong" before "wise vs unwise"?

Note that in my definition of morality I included implicit or explicit. The predecessors to humanity had implicit morality. It was not a conceptualized explicit notion of right and wrong, but rather an emotional sense of moral indignation when a wrong has occurred. Even chimps have a sense of fairness. For this reason, I say that morality preceded the rest.

Here you seem to recognize religion as a (albeit somewhat misguided) moral endeavor shaped by a class of highly regarded storytellers (not as ritual based like you assert elsewhere)

Social phenomenon are typically more complex than a single element. I believe that myths and legends serve as the stage upon which religions are created, but that they do not qualify as more than a cultural oral tradition unless they are accompanied by ritual. Even then, as before, I am inclined to include a spiritual element to the ritual before it becomes religious in nature, as opposed to other less constraining cultural behaviors.

Have you given any thought to how without a robust god concept, morality can be reduced (for many) to a matter of acting in a way that pleases the most powerful person(s) at any given time?

I don’t believe that all elements of morality can be reduced to pleasing the most powerful, with or without god. While some aspects of morality can reduce to this, such as respect for authority, not all aspects qualify. Moral foundations theory includes five elements; Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.

Supposing that morality exists independently from the social systems through which morals are cultivated (religions) is not a form of new philospophical enlightenment but pseudo-intellectual delusion

You’ll have to support this statement a little more. As it stands I have proposed that morality came first. Religion was used to explain and develop moral intuitions that previously existed. It would seem that approaching those moral intuitions in a new way, rather than with religion, is similar to approaching the origin of humanity in a new way, rather than religion.

Do you think that state sanctioned moral indoctrination would futher seperate laws and legal systems from religion, dissolve the distinction between them, or have no effect ?

What do you suppose is the current, secular system wherein you will be put in a cage if you breach certain moral standards? Moral sanctions against stealing are both religious and secular.

We have always grouped up according to shared moral principles (articulate or not) this is the nature of religion and no laws have or ever will be enacted without essentially the same kind of unity. If religion has been removed, it was a mere semantic maneuver.

Only if you don’t allow for a spiritual element when defining religion.

Morality is just what those being affected by something can agree upon.

If morality of something isn't under consensus, any judgements on it will just be false.

Laws are based on what the majority perceives to be moral, considering how unlikely consensi are.

Religion is an attempt to gain majority, or even consensus, on moral stances. (In relation to the topic, that is.)