People determine what is right based on their morals. Not everyone agrees on what that means for every situation but there are some widely-accepted ideas for how to make those decisions. By adulthood, it’s generally something you’ll have an intuitive sense for since moral reasoning begins developing early in life. Even if you’re deciding (or being forced) to do immoral things, people tend to be capable of recognizing that what they’re doing is wrong. One problem with religion that is identified in the picture above is that in the case of a conflict between a person’s faith and their morality, religious influence may override their sense of right and wrong which can lead to conflicts, both internal and external. I don’t know if that’s what you’re asking though.
Hopefully that wasn’t too vague of a response, I’m not the most qualified person in the world to explain but there’s no shortage of reading material on the subject. It’s one of those things people have been talking and writing about more or less since the dawn of talking and writing.
To suggest that morality is to doing what is right is to argue that either there is a universal definition of “right” or that, as you suggest, each person decides for themselves. If it’s the latter, then one couldn’t argue that another person has behaved immorally, and therefore therefore is morality even a thing? If it’s the former then one might argue that we all have the same sense of right and wrong from intrinsic human nature, but then it’s a nature vs nurture question, isn’t it?
My view is that it comes from human nature and our ability to empathize with others. We learn it from personal experience which includes influence from the people around us. I don’t like getting punched in the face, I recognize that other people probably don’t like getting punched in the face so under most circumstances, I won’t punch somebody else in the face. Some part of that was probably my parents telling me as a child that punching people in the face isn’t right. You can say the same about theft, malicious lying (with a carve-out for the harmless stuff that eases social interactions) and playing loud music with thumping bass at 3 AM in an apartment complex. I wouldn’t enjoy being subjected to those things so I don’t do those things to others.
The closest thing I think we have to a universal definition (because there are always going to be outliers) is along those lines. If this does not address your questions, please let me know where I’ve missed the mark but I’d like to hear where you believe it comes from as well.
How is overriding sense of morality is a problem? Doesn’t your sociocultural background already do that, leading to conflicts?
Based on my experience, people seem to override their religion more than the opposite. I doubt if those mega rich pastors, pedophile priests, extremists, and hate groups actually care about what their religions say. It seems that they just do whatever the fuck they want and do all sort of mental gymnastics to justify their actions and make themselves feel better about it. I’d much prefer if religion actually overrides these people’s morality
Humanity has justified an awful lot of shitty behavior on account of religion
That’s exactly my point?
If you take an in depth look of those events, there were always inherent political and economical motives. Explicitly saying that you want to assert authority, consolidate power, and acquire more land and wealth by slaughtering bunch of innocent people sounds awful, doesn’t it?
Saying that most wars are caused by religion seems like a stretch, considering conflicts have existed long before human even existed and fights are going to happen anyway. I’m not sure if that’s any worse than invading Iraq for “freedom” or Stalin and Mao killing their people because they were “counter-revolutionaries”
you take an in depth look of those events, there were always inherent political and economical motives. Explicitly saying that you want to assert authority, consolidate power, and acquire more land and wealth by slaughtering bunch of innocent people sounds awful, doesn’t it?
And those leaders have used (organized) religion to control the masses such that said political leaders could do exactly that. More over, consider that until the rise of Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, most relations were distinctly national. Even the Israelites used their particular deity to justify genocide (Invasion of Palestine, Cannan, and the rest of that corner of the world, the biblical narrative places as they entered the promised land). Babylonians and Egyptions and Greeks and Romans all used their patron gods to excuse invasions. As did buddhists and muslim leaders. (even if buddhism might technically be an atheist religion.)
Saying that most wars are caused by religion seems like a stretch, considering conflicts have existed long before human even existed and fights are going to happen anyway. I’m not sure if that’s any worse than invading Iraq for “freedom” or Stalin and Mao killing their people because they were “counter-revolutionaries”
Understand that the first evidence of religion also predates modern humans, with graves found with neanderthals in them.
Stalin and Mao are only VERY recent in human history. As is, obviously, the second iraq war (and american patriotism might be seen as it’s own kind of religion. Terrifying that.). and for most of human history, religion has been the predominate tool for social control. In point of fact, it still is. and for the bulk of that, clergy have tied their authority on to the king. Divine Right of Kings being justification for why they get to bully people around (because god said they could.) even after the idea that the church and state should be separate occured to St Augustine… (incidentally first elaborated on in a book intended to explain that the Visigoth’s sacking rome had nothing to do with roman conversion to christianity…) it was always intended as a defense of the church’s authority from being encroached… and never the other way 'round. it wasn’t until Luther did his thing (and hey, look, more wars,) that we got our modern conception of separated church and state. (my understanding of similarities, the buddha never encouraged anyone to be involved in politics… but then Ashoka happened… see my comment about organized religion always being used for social control.)
in most of human history… organized religions were nationalized into supporting local leadership. They had their own national diety, and the military successes were always a result of their diety being stronger than others, as well as maybe other natural disasters happening (like maybe the bubonic plague hitting palestine when the ark of the covenant was held in Dagon’s temple. you see similar assertions of divine intervention in the wars between greek city states, and with the south american empires.)
that the leaders in those religions were greedy bastards with ulterior motives is not particularly surprising, but not particularly relevant. Throughout most of human history, the religious and secular were inextricably linked, with religion being used to control the commoners and justifying what would be- as you note- an otherwise unjustifiable war. The clergy allowed this so they themselves could maintain their own power, wealth, and status in their society; and the rulers allowed it because the clergy allowed them to be assholes. it was fear of divine retribution that kept people in line.
Having to justify actions to themselves and find ways to feel better can be made easier with a tool like religion that they can lean on. It’s not the only way to get there but at that point, they’ve already recognized that what they’re doing is immoral and they want the money, kid-rape, political / social change, etc. more than they want to stay within the bounds of morality. Murder is wrong but if they’ve been told that, according to the all-knowing being in charge who knows best, allowing a certain type of person to live is worse, they have a ready substitute for the “don’t murder” rule to help them pull the trigger.
Doesn’t have to be the big-ticket items like rape and murder though, it could just be someone who makes others’ lives harder unnecessarily. Maybe it’s a shitty boss whose verbal abuse is just acceptable enough to avoid discipline from above or somebody who tosses their fast food trash out the window on the highway. Scummy behavior for sure but they can balance the scales for themselves by feeling bad and talking about it on Sunday morning. It can replace the urge to be less of a shitbag because at least they’re still playing the role of a good worshiper.
People determine what is right based on their morals. Not everyone agrees on what that means for every situation but there are some widely-accepted ideas for how to make those decisions. By adulthood, it’s generally something you’ll have an intuitive sense for since moral reasoning begins developing early in life. Even if you’re deciding (or being forced) to do immoral things, people tend to be capable of recognizing that what they’re doing is wrong. One problem with religion that is identified in the picture above is that in the case of a conflict between a person’s faith and their morality, religious influence may override their sense of right and wrong which can lead to conflicts, both internal and external. I don’t know if that’s what you’re asking though.
Hopefully that wasn’t too vague of a response, I’m not the most qualified person in the world to explain but there’s no shortage of reading material on the subject. It’s one of those things people have been talking and writing about more or less since the dawn of talking and writing.
To suggest that morality is to doing what is right is to argue that either there is a universal definition of “right” or that, as you suggest, each person decides for themselves. If it’s the latter, then one couldn’t argue that another person has behaved immorally, and therefore therefore is morality even a thing? If it’s the former then one might argue that we all have the same sense of right and wrong from intrinsic human nature, but then it’s a nature vs nurture question, isn’t it?
My view is that it comes from human nature and our ability to empathize with others. We learn it from personal experience which includes influence from the people around us. I don’t like getting punched in the face, I recognize that other people probably don’t like getting punched in the face so under most circumstances, I won’t punch somebody else in the face. Some part of that was probably my parents telling me as a child that punching people in the face isn’t right. You can say the same about theft, malicious lying (with a carve-out for the harmless stuff that eases social interactions) and playing loud music with thumping bass at 3 AM in an apartment complex. I wouldn’t enjoy being subjected to those things so I don’t do those things to others.
The closest thing I think we have to a universal definition (because there are always going to be outliers) is along those lines. If this does not address your questions, please let me know where I’ve missed the mark but I’d like to hear where you believe it comes from as well.
How is overriding sense of morality is a problem? Doesn’t your sociocultural background already do that, leading to conflicts?
Based on my experience, people seem to override their religion more than the opposite. I doubt if those mega rich pastors, pedophile priests, extremists, and hate groups actually care about what their religions say. It seems that they just do whatever the fuck they want and do all sort of mental gymnastics to justify their actions and make themselves feel better about it. I’d much prefer if religion actually overrides these people’s morality
You, uh, ever look into the inquisition? Maybe the crusades?
Most wars in human history have been caused by religious distinctions.
Humanity has justified an awful lot of shitty behavior on account of religion
That’s exactly my point?
If you take an in depth look of those events, there were always inherent political and economical motives. Explicitly saying that you want to assert authority, consolidate power, and acquire more land and wealth by slaughtering bunch of innocent people sounds awful, doesn’t it?
Saying that most wars are caused by religion seems like a stretch, considering conflicts have existed long before human even existed and fights are going to happen anyway. I’m not sure if that’s any worse than invading Iraq for “freedom” or Stalin and Mao killing their people because they were “counter-revolutionaries”
And those leaders have used (organized) religion to control the masses such that said political leaders could do exactly that. More over, consider that until the rise of Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, most relations were distinctly national. Even the Israelites used their particular deity to justify genocide (Invasion of Palestine, Cannan, and the rest of that corner of the world, the biblical narrative places as they entered the promised land). Babylonians and Egyptions and Greeks and Romans all used their patron gods to excuse invasions. As did buddhists and muslim leaders. (even if buddhism might technically be an atheist religion.)
Understand that the first evidence of religion also predates modern humans, with graves found with neanderthals in them.
Stalin and Mao are only VERY recent in human history. As is, obviously, the second iraq war (and american patriotism might be seen as it’s own kind of religion. Terrifying that.). and for most of human history, religion has been the predominate tool for social control. In point of fact, it still is. and for the bulk of that, clergy have tied their authority on to the king. Divine Right of Kings being justification for why they get to bully people around (because god said they could.) even after the idea that the church and state should be separate occured to St Augustine… (incidentally first elaborated on in a book intended to explain that the Visigoth’s sacking rome had nothing to do with roman conversion to christianity…) it was always intended as a defense of the church’s authority from being encroached… and never the other way 'round. it wasn’t until Luther did his thing (and hey, look, more wars,) that we got our modern conception of separated church and state. (my understanding of similarities, the buddha never encouraged anyone to be involved in politics… but then Ashoka happened… see my comment about organized religion always being used for social control.)
in most of human history… organized religions were nationalized into supporting local leadership. They had their own national diety, and the military successes were always a result of their diety being stronger than others, as well as maybe other natural disasters happening (like maybe the bubonic plague hitting palestine when the ark of the covenant was held in Dagon’s temple. you see similar assertions of divine intervention in the wars between greek city states, and with the south american empires.)
that the leaders in those religions were greedy bastards with ulterior motives is not particularly surprising, but not particularly relevant. Throughout most of human history, the religious and secular were inextricably linked, with religion being used to control the commoners and justifying what would be- as you note- an otherwise unjustifiable war. The clergy allowed this so they themselves could maintain their own power, wealth, and status in their society; and the rulers allowed it because the clergy allowed them to be assholes. it was fear of divine retribution that kept people in line.
Having to justify actions to themselves and find ways to feel better can be made easier with a tool like religion that they can lean on. It’s not the only way to get there but at that point, they’ve already recognized that what they’re doing is immoral and they want the money, kid-rape, political / social change, etc. more than they want to stay within the bounds of morality. Murder is wrong but if they’ve been told that, according to the all-knowing being in charge who knows best, allowing a certain type of person to live is worse, they have a ready substitute for the “don’t murder” rule to help them pull the trigger.
Doesn’t have to be the big-ticket items like rape and murder though, it could just be someone who makes others’ lives harder unnecessarily. Maybe it’s a shitty boss whose verbal abuse is just acceptable enough to avoid discipline from above or somebody who tosses their fast food trash out the window on the highway. Scummy behavior for sure but they can balance the scales for themselves by feeling bad and talking about it on Sunday morning. It can replace the urge to be less of a shitbag because at least they’re still playing the role of a good worshiper.