.jpg)
Morality in general is broken down into (at least) three branches:
Consequentialism, or the belief that the morality of an act is based on the consequences of the action.
Deontology, or the belief that the morality of an act is based on whether or not it is compliant with a rule/rules; and Virtue ethics, or the belief that morality should be based on what people 'are', rather than what people 'do'.
Using these definitions, most of today's religions advocate deontology, with the set of rules being ordained by supernatural entities. However, there is nothing inherent in this branches that requires them.
Beyond that, morality can be studied within the fields of psychology and sociology. While both offer explanations of its existence, neither field offers a solution to say that one set of morals is greater than another, but the notion can still be achieved through secular philosophy. This is evidenced by the judicial actions of secular institutions (perhaps the best example is that of secular governments) or prevailing social norms which have no basis in religion or are not held by religious adherents. Examples would include the outlawing of slavery, and the rejection of sexism and racism.
Conversely, dogmatic approaches by religions to establish one solid set of rules, which explicitly state one thing is wrong and the other is not, deter progress in morality.
If compassion and kindness can only be learnt from a set of 'morality code' outlined by a celestial entity, how the scene above happened? From which God did the mama dog learned inter-species compassion while religious people kill fellow humans in the name of God?
Related articles:
Using these definitions, most of today's religions advocate deontology, with the set of rules being ordained by supernatural entities. However, there is nothing inherent in this branches that requires them.
Beyond that, morality can be studied within the fields of psychology and sociology. While both offer explanations of its existence, neither field offers a solution to say that one set of morals is greater than another, but the notion can still be achieved through secular philosophy. This is evidenced by the judicial actions of secular institutions (perhaps the best example is that of secular governments) or prevailing social norms which have no basis in religion or are not held by religious adherents. Examples would include the outlawing of slavery, and the rejection of sexism and racism.
Conversely, dogmatic approaches by religions to establish one solid set of rules, which explicitly state one thing is wrong and the other is not, deter progress in morality.
If compassion and kindness can only be learnt from a set of 'morality code' outlined by a celestial entity, how the scene above happened? From which God did the mama dog learned inter-species compassion while religious people kill fellow humans in the name of God?
Related articles:
- Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were evil because they were atheists?
- The truth about atheists and atheism
- Why you should become an atheist
- Why I would raise my children godless
Don't forget to share with your friends and colleagues
You can leave your comments below, in the Comment Section. We like to have a healthy debate here. Please avoid profanity, personal attacks and rouse racial and religious sensitivity. The views of the commentators are not shared by Both Coin. The bottomline is, comment sensibly with relevance to the article.
.jpg)
