As I was thinking of moral compasses, I wanted to find out what the various
religions had to say about that. As a start, I looked it up on Wikipedia.
I cut and pasted the trlrvant paragraph that I want to share with all of
you.
*Relationship between religion and morality*
Within the wide range of ethical traditions, religious traditions co-exist
with secular value frameworks such as humanism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism>, utilitarianism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism>, and others. There are many
types of religious values. Modern monotheistic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheistic> religions, such as Islam
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam>, Judaism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism>, Christianity
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity>, and to a certain degree others
such as Sikhism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism>, define right and
wrong by the laws and rules set forth by their respective gods and as
interpreted by religious leaders within the respective faith. Polytheistic
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheistic> religious traditions tend to be
less absolute. For example, within Buddhism
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism>, the intention of the individual
and the circumstances should be accounted for to determine if an action is
right or wrong.[9]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-9> A further
disparity between the morals of religious traditions is pointed out by Barbara
Stoler Miller <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Stoler_Miller>, who
states that, in Hinduism, "practically, right and wrong are decided
according to the categories of social rank, kinship, and stages of life.
For modern Westerners, who have been raised on ideals of universality and
egalitarianism, this relativity of values and obligations is the aspect of
Hinduism most difficult to understand".[10]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-10>
According to Stephen Gaukroger
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gaukroger>, "It was generally assumed
in the 17th century that religion provided the unique basis for morality,
and that without religion, there could be no morality."[11]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-11> This view
slowly shifted over time. In 1690, Pierre Bayle
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bayle> asserted that religion "is
neither necessary nor sufficient for morality."[12]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-12> Modern
sources separate the two concepts. For example, *The Westminster Dictionary
of Christian Ethics* says that,
For many religious people, morality and religion are the same or
inseparable; for them either morality is part of religion or their religion
is their morality. For others, especially for nonreligious people, morality
and religion are distinct and separable; religion may be immoral or
nonmoral, and morality may or should be nonreligous. Even for some
religious people the two are different and separable; they may hold that
religion should be moral and morality should be, but they agree that they
may not be.[13]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-13>
Richard Paula and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking
assert that "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with
social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law". They separate the
concept of ethics from these topics, stating that
The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds:
those which enhance the well-being of others—that warrant our praise—and
those that harm or diminish the well-being of others—and thus warrant our
criticism.[14]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-ReferenceA-14>
They note problems that could arise if religions defined ethics, such as
(1) religious practices like "torturing unbelievers or burning them alive"
potentially being labeled "ethical", and (2) the lack of a common religious
baseline across humanity because religions provide different theological
definitions for the idea of sin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin>.[14]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-ReferenceA-14>
They further note that various documents, such as the UN Declaration of
Human Rights <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Declaration_of_Human_Rights>
lay out "transcultural" and "trans-religious" ethical concepts and
principles such as slavery, genocide, torture, sexism, racism, murder,
assault, fraud, deceit, and intimidation which require no reliance on
religion (or social convention) for us to understand they are "ethically
wrong".[14]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#cite_note-ReferenceA-14>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_and_religion#Relationship_between_religion_and_morality
On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 5:31:19 PM UTC+1, pol.science kid wrote:
>
> I checked the etymology of religion... It makes even more suspicious of
> religion.. Why do most people confuse being a theist with being
> religious... Religion is just increasingly irritating.. I guess sometimes
> they overlap of course.. Theism and being religious.. But i am just
> thinking.. When these big religions were supposedly concieved their message
> must have been to people in general right. Not to hindus or muslims or
> christians etc... Right?
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
