Morality is subjective and a distinction between right and wrong is not something that is universally agreed. Human beings are social animals, we live in groups. Therefore, behaviours which benefit our social group are generally accepted and those that damage it are punished. Individual ''good'' and the greater, society ''good'' are two things that can co-exist. Those individuals who are able to satisfy their own personal needs and at the same time engage in behaviours that benefit the society, have the evolutionary advantage. Natural selection takes care of the rest. Our genetic hardwiring and the guidance of our group helps us understand it. We are intelligent enough to realize that if we don't steal each other's things and if we don't kill each other, the society will become a better place to live in, which will benefit us directly as individuals.
A religious book is not needed to give a personal a moral code. If someone was to take his morality entirely from the bible for example, he would be a very confused individual since the bible is full of contradicting moral lessons. But most people are able to read the bible and make a distinction between the ''good'' moral lessons and the ''bad'' moral lessons found in it. This only means that they got their morality from somewhere else and not the bible itself.
Dear "In the words of no one" (nulliusinverba):
I don't understand what you mean by "religion".
By the term, I understand "giving to God what is his due", such as prayer and thanksgiving and honor.
By the term, "morality", I understand, "giving to neighbor what is his or her due", such as respect for his or her life, property and other elementary human rights.
Unfortunately, there have always been "priests" or castes of priests that stand between God and us using or abusing this charge to extort monies or services. In this way, they not only violate morality, but authentic religion: God does not need our goods nor does He want to rob us (if you want to believe it). These "priests" or "preachers" screw both God and human persons. The worst part about it may be that they give God a bad name. God is not a thief. But because of the priests, an outraged humanity rises up against the priests -- understandably -- and also against God, but God is not directly at fault.
It seems that you are starting from a misunderstanding of religion to justify a rejection of morality. Why mix the two?
Okay, so there are nasty preachers, priests and Pharisees, but why should rejecting God and religion be an excuse for rejecting morality as well? (And by the way, I believe there are also good priests and preachers.)
Here's a moral law, the most fundamental of all moral laws: Do good, and avoid evil.
As it stands, who can disagree with that? Someone may say "good" and "evil" are different for each individual, so this can't be a universal and objective law. But the "Golden Rule" defines good and evil in a way that almost everyone (except truly psychopathic people) can agree:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do not do unto others, as you would not have anyone do unto you.
Does that rule not apply to (almost) everyone? If it does, then "good" and "evil" do have universal meaning and are objective, and the meaning of each term is not reducible to that of the other.
I think you should hold that "good" and "evil" and the Golden Rule provide an elementary groundwork for holding that there is universal, objective moral law. The problem of bad "religion" is a different problem that should not be mixed up with that of authentic morality, of rendering to the neighbor what is due here on earth, where we must live with each other.
@apollonius
I didn't reject morality in my article. I actually made a separation between morality and religion. I even mentioned how the 'Golden Rule' is something that most humans understand subconsciously and behave according to that. If they don't, the society usually rejects them. But even within the Golden Rule, morality can be subjective. For example, I will assume that the majority of humans will tell you that murder is a ''bad'' thing. But then if you go ahead and ask them ''When is it okay to kill someone?'' you will see that you get a variety of responses, subject to each individual's morality. Some will tell you it's okay to kill someone who breaks into your home, others will tell you that it's okay to kill someone who killed someone else. Some will tell you that it's okay to kill a suffering human to get him out of his misery and others will tell you that it's okay to kill only if your own life is being threatened. The point I made in my article that morality is subjective and it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Amid the commentary to your article, I may have lost its main thrust. I do not believe that there exists a perfect objectivity, so objective as to be deprived of all subjectivity. Similarly, I do not believe in a perfectly pure subjectivity. In particular, I don't see morality as purely subjective or objective. But I do have trouble with reducing morality to pure subjectivity.
Notice that if we can discuss whether in certain circumstances it's permissible to take a human life, we are nevertheless presupposing the notions of good and evil. That tells me that these are primordial notions that cannot be reduced to pure subjectivity.
And yes, "religion" is related to morality, but it's on another plane and not the same thing. Religion is between God and me, morality between me and other human persons. Maybe that expresses your viewpoint too.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jesus said, "Blessed is he whosoever is not offended in me." I had a problem understanding this because I could not comprehend why anyone would have issues with teachings that promoted peace among men of good will.
I found the answer in the conversation between Eve and the serpent [ caution - easy diversion ]. Eve was told, "...you will be like God, knowing good and evil". The word "knowing" includes the idea of DECIDING. The adversary was telling her she could decide right and wrong on her own, and the rest is, as they say, history. A history of chaos, heartache, destruction and misery.
Smart folks [ meaning those that worship intellect ] are offended by anyone telling them they are sinners [ antinomian - 1 John 3:4 ] or unqualified to decide right and wrong for themselves.
"Natural selection takes care of the rest." This confirms you do not understand the term itself. Furthermore I'd refute anyone who claims the bible morally contradicts itself even once, that my friend, is "subjective".You obviously havent read it in its entirety and certainly not understood it. Lastly to assert morality is an 'evolutionary' trait is rather humerous. Science concludes every living organism EXCEPT MAN has no moral reasoning outside biological advancement within their environment. However, I'm not here to preach to you, I respect your right to believe in whatever you desire my friend.
God Bless ☺
Please explain further. The point I made is that human beings who have the genes that make them able to function well in a society, have an evolutionary advantage.
The Bible is supposed to be, for the religious, the ''word of God''. There's only one God for Christians, so I'd have to make the assumption that he has only ''one word''. Yet the Bible does contradict itself on matters such as killing, stealing, having slaves etc etc. Which of course makes absolute sense, since the Bible was written by every day humans like you and me and they wrote it based on their own morality.
On all these matters I'd love to debate you publicly, however understandably this outlet isn't the place.
" Yet the Bible does contradict itself on matters such as killing, stealing, having slaves etc etc."
This i dont mind correcting. Please simply provide examples. I can shed light on the slave subject. Slaves then was not reminiscent of American slaves or the slave trade in modern history. Most people didnt have denari/coinage/money so they resorted to trade. One most common forms of trade was to work off debt for crop shares, land, etc...this was considered "slaves". Also those who had committed crimes were too "slaves" as a form of payment for the crimes theyd committed.
Hence the Bible informed the Jewish ppl to be good to their "slaves". 😏
Just a couple of quick ones....
Mark 12:31 - The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[a] There is no commandment greater than these
Romans 13:10 - Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
VS.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
Leviticus 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
====================
So what should I do to my gay neighbour and my ''slut'' friend? Love them or kill them?
Lol very good my friend, let me elaborate. The first scripture in Mark is part of God's new Covenant with man. Jesus died to abolish the 613 laws of the old testiment, mans law, there are 37 scriptures confirming this. The ten COMMANDMENTS are solid. Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God and yes in the old testiment under the law of Pharisee's they'd kill those who where guilty of committing homosexual acts and women that committed adultry and sold their body. Thank God Jesus paid the price to abolish those laws. In regards to homosexual people as well as whores, love them...don't FALL in love with them, God commands it.
*Note: These are my beliefs as written in the Bible, it's not meant to offend anyone. The Bible also states God is merciful.. Luke 6:36, Ephesians 2:4...many more and He forgives those who ask for it 1 John 1:9. 🕇
You should love them by showing them that their lawlessness [ 1John 3:4 ] is selfish interest in their own pleasure, exemplifying a lack of love for their neighbors [ society ]. If you do this sincerely, they may repent [ change mind ].
What happens when your examples become the rule instead of the exception?
"Which of course makes absolute sense, since the Bible was written by every day humans like you and me and they wrote it based on their own morality."
Why would men write a book that condemns what they want to do and are doing? The first example that comes to mind is Nicolaitanism [ the clergy/laity system] .