Can we develop a moral code that is religious free?

[Taboo]

Obviously one can devise a moral code that is religious free: "Good is whatever ST wants at any given time, bad is whatever interferes with ST's desires." Not a trace of religion within. As Ibrahim pointed out, the trouble is getting enough people to sign on, and I strongly suspect the example I gave would gather perhaps a small following of masochists and submissives, but no one else.

Therefore, from a pragmatical atheist point of view, the more relevant question is "why should we?" Whenever we're born in the past 3000 years, there's already a well-established code. Especially in the technologically advanced regions of the world such codes would have millions or tens of millions of followers. The support base for their widespread acceptance is two-fold - (1) an expectation that following it will lead to public order and well-being and (2) obviously the big stick carried by the enforcers of the code, whether it is (3a) the literally armed agents of the state for formal parts of the code, or (3b) the social opprobium (such as harsh words and withering glances) for violating unwritten, informal parts of the code (talking loudly in cinemas, spitting on the street, etc).

Religious sanction spans both pillars, with religious individuals internalizing norms without question as divinely ordained, and as simply one of many parts of the enforcement bit, be it simply via social pressure or via having state's legal enforcers enforce religious commands as the law of the land.

Getting tens of millions of people to accept a brand new moral code is problematic. At any point, any number of the two factors I mentioned in the previous paragraph will still be backing the pre-existing code, generating immense inertia, regardless of the virtues of the new code. Attempts to impose a new code (from Akenathon to Lenin) have been top-down, terribly bloody and utterly unsuccessful.

So, there is no reason why one would try to implement "a moral code that is religious free", in the sense that all of the existing moral codes have some (sometimes distant and forgotten) religious backing. Now, if you mean a moral code that is currently not backed by religion, well, that's kinda what Western society is now. Nobody says that you shouldn't smoke while pregnant because life is sacred (Kalevala III, Rune IV, verse 16), rearing healthy children is skygod Ukko's command (Aino's Song, line 289), and that somewhere in the Suomen Runot smoke is said to be bad. At least not in the West, can't vouch for other cultures (after all, there are Shia rules about the proper way to wipe your ass, all with religious arguments). Instead, in the West, we argue on the basis of that cloudy "studies have shown" or, if we feel contrary, by examining the financial interests of various involved parties present at the debate.

So I would argue that the West at least is engaged in a slow, rational, publicly debated re-analisys of previously accepted code. Many things that were religiously-backed have vanished both from the law-books and from acceptable public discourse through this utterly non-religious process. Give it some more time, and the code will be about as rational and non-religious as its own inertia will allow it to become.

The religious confusion here (understandable since the West has for so long been a religious monoculture of sorts) is to confuse relatively unchanging religious commands with the socially accepted moral code. The moral code is accepted not because the religion is true (different religions have different moral codes, after all, and can't all be true), but because such a large number of people in a geographic locale think that a particular set of rules of behaviors is expected, acceptable and enforced. A moral code is simply the aggregate result of what people in a given territory think is appropriate. Since people can change their minds (unlike written words which cannot be unwritten and rewritten as easily), the moral code will change with changed circumstances, such as new information or new technology.

[Marcus]

. . the more relevant question is "why . . ?" . .

And as soon as that question is asked and answered, you have introduced a religion/world-view.

[Taboo]

Marcus, I significantly edited the post above for clarity.

I did not mean that "why?" as an existential philosophical question. It was more along the lines of "why bother, if it's a purely an academic exercise." True change comes through gradual activism, rational persuasion and the power of example. Moral codes are changed, not forged anew. So the question that was asked was pointless.
To give an example, Gays were seen as utterly despicable individuals living in the shadow, and therefore were sentenced to live in the shadow and live despicable lives, until via organization and example, they showed that they can live perfectly normal lives, gradually lifting the religiously inspired fog of ignorance that had prevented people from seeing them as just, you know, people.

Why can a drunken sleaze-ball and serial philanderer order a Russian bride and have her legally immigrate to the US, while a lesbian couple of 10 years cannot do the same thing? As soon as one starts to see lesbians not as "satan's spawn" out to corrupt your kids or whatever, and instead as Mrs. Jones' next door, the question becomes obvious. It's OBVIOUSLY unfair.

[Marcus]

Marcus, I significantly edited the post above for clarity.

I did not mean that "why?" as an existential philosophical question. It was more along the lines of "why bother, if it's a purely an academic exercise." True change comes through gradual activism, rational persuasion and the power of example. Moral codes are changed, not forged anew. So the question that was asked was pointless.
To give an example, Gays were seen as utterly despicable individuals living in the shadow, and therefore were sentenced to live in the shadow and live despicable lives, until via organization and example, they showed that they can live perfectly normal lives, gradually lifting the religiously inspired fog of ignorance that had prevented people from seeing them as just, you know, people.

Why can a drunken sleaze-ball and serial philanderer order a Russian bride and have her legally immigrate to the US, while a lesbian couple of 10 years cannot do the same thing? As soon as one starts to see lesbians not as "satan's spawn" out to corrupt your kids or whatever, and instead as Mrs. Jones' next door, the question becomes obvious. It's OBVIOUSLY unfair.

Taboo,

Thanks, and I understand. Yes, you are correct in that moral codes change gradually over time.

My post was intended generally in response to the question of whether any moral code can be instituted without a religious foundation, and my answer is "no." Something, some religion/world-view must supply the presuppositions that will justify the "why" of what we should or shouldn't do.

[Taboo]

Marcus, I don't think too many people ask "Why?" If they did, our society would be a lot more rational than it is.

"Because God said so" is less arbitrary than "Because I said so" only insofar as the interpretation of a written text is more difficult to alter than the mood of a tyrant.

I think "Because we as a society have at some point in the past debated the topic and collectively decided that this would be the best course of action, and no obvious need to reexamine the issue has arisen" is far more compelling.

[Marcus]

Marcus, I don't think too many people ask "Why?" . .

Taboo, who knew?

You are right . . most people are epistemologically unconscious . . they know what they believe but have no idea why.

In the meantime and for those who do ask "why," some set of "religious" presuppositions always undergird the answer,

It's too easy to think of "religion" as simply Christianity/Islam/Mormonism/Buddhism/etc./etc./etc. when virtually any and all world-views constitute a "religion"—those more-or-less systematic set of "facts" in terms of which one interprets life, the cosmos, and more.

[Taboo]

We've been over your over-broad definition of religion before. I have replied to you again, in the other thread.

Meanwhile, I would like you to acknowledge the fundamental difference between the authoritarian "Because X said so" and "Because we talked about this and we reached this compromise" I mentioned in the previous post.

One is top-down, the other is bottom-up. One is freedom-restricting, the other is freedom enhancing. One is rigid and ossified, the other is adaptable to changing circumstances.

Which one do you think is more likely to promote to Long-term welfare of a human society? Would not the more adaptable, bottom-up, political-democratic-participatory approach be better in a non-static non-subsistence society?

Think about it. Past moral codes were cast in iron. Do as your Father did, since he lived on the edge of subsistence, and your experiments might well lead you to your doom before you can readjust your course.
Think about it. We live in a post-scarcity age, where food and shelter is plentiful as never before. We now have the maneuver room for experimenting with basic principles. At best, we end up with better and juster society. At worst, we decide we didn't like the changes and go back.

[Marcus]

We've been over your over-broad definition of religion before. I have replied to you again, in the other thread.

It's then at this point we must agree to disagree.

You believe my definition of religion is over-broad.

I believe your definition of religion too narrow.

And never the twain shall meet.

[Taboo]

You answer too fast, not giving me enough time to take a second look. So here;s my point again:

Meanwhile, I would like you to acknowledge the fundamental difference between the authoritarian "Because X said so" and "Because we talked about this and we reached this compromise" I mentioned in the previous post.

One is top-down, the other is bottom-up. One is freedom-restricting, the other is freedom enhancing. One is rigid and ossified, the other is adaptable to changing circumstances.

Which one do you think is more likely to promote to Long-term welfare of a human society? Would not the more adaptable, bottom-up, political-democratic-participatory approach be better in a non-static non-subsistence society?

Think about it. Past moral codes were cast in iron. Do as your Father did, since he lived on the edge of subsistence, and your experiments might well lead you to your doom before you can readjust your course.
Think about it. We live in a post-scarcity age, where food and shelter is plentiful as never before. We now have the maneuver room for experimenting with basic principles. At best, we end up with better and juster society. At worst, we decide we didn't like the changes and go back.

[Marcus]

. . Meanwhile, I would like you to acknowledge the fundamental difference between the authoritarian "Because X said so" and "Because we talked about this and we reached this compromise" . .

One is top-down, the other is bottom-up. One is freedom-restricting, the other is freedom enhancing. One is rigid and ossified, the other is adaptable to changing circumstances. . .

I would if I could but can't. Epistemologically speaking, both your options above will ultimately retreat to a single, self-authenticating source of authority which must be accepted by faith and at that point, both are equally rigid.

Politically speaking, compromise is usually necessary.

[Taboo]

Well, the source of authority for the first is a rather inexact copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the inaccurate translation of the translation of the imperfectly remembered words of some (semi?)divine figure that may or may not have lived at a certain time in a certain place.

There is of course the small rub that the peoples of the world strongly disagree on which semi-divine figure if any were real. Can you impose a Christological argument on 10,000,000 polytheist Indians, or 30,000,000 atheists? Probably not without violence and coercion.

The source of authority for the second is, fundamentally, the human dignity and respect that we agree all humans are due, endowing them with political and social rights. The source of authority is "Well, we don't really know, but we can try it in a small setting and see what happens."

The first is based on fundamentally incompatible absolutes, doomed to forever be in conflict, while the second is based on human nature, experiment and observation, eminently replicable and ultimately factual and observable, so in principle something everyone can actually agree on.

[Enki]

I think morality can be sensed experientially and explained rationally. We have so long labored under a culture of law, that we have pretty much forgotten how to experience moral truth. So many even deny that there is a moral truth, that morality is completely relative to what an individual wants. But beyond law, I think that morality is a natural part of life. It stems from empathy, from interaction and cooperation. It is in many cases, "I know it when I see it."

I think a good area to examine such morality is Mohammed's marriage to Aisha. From a modern context with a heavy dose of feminism and western anti-Muslim sentiment, this is considered to be some kind of travesty. Except that, in Mohammed's time, marrying young girls was normal, they appear to have loved each other, and Aisha was one of the most powerful and influential women in all of history. You can argue that the morality is relative, that it's not bad to marry and genuflect a young girl in 7th century Arabia, but it's bad to do so in 21st century America. Or you can argue that it's always bad, that they were just barbarians. But it's all more subtle than that. People are trying to come to a moral place using legal reasoning.

Lets start with the first principle of the critique:
Sexual power parity is essential for a relationship to be considered moral.

Obviously young Aisha growing up in a patriarchal society is not socially equal to Mohammed. However, Mohammed gained his power through his first marriage to a powerful woman. So the patriarchy example isn't perfect. Then we come to age. Mohammed is more knowledgeable and experienced and is thus taking advantage of Aisha. However, young men are just as likely, if not more likely to treat a young woman badly than an older man. All of our moral judgments come from these legal ideas related to the age of the participants and the power disparity.

Lets say for the sake of argument that Mohammed and Aisha really did love one another. If the marriage was a proper match from their perspective, then it is a perfectly moral act. If Mohammed treated Aisha well within the confines of the cultural and legal context in which they lived, then it's a moral relationship regardless of the identity characteristics of the participants.

A legal argument for morality relies upon definitions. The delineation of boundaries that one does not cross is integral to a legal analysis of morality. On the other hand, in the absence of defined law, there is still a relationship between love and compassion between two or more people. One can transgress against cultural taboo, and one can transgress against the individual.

It is not by accident that most cultures have some very common features of their moral code regarding murder, theft, rape, betrayal, lying, etc...

[Ibrahim]

Lets start with the first principle of the critique:
Sexual power parity is essential for a relationship to be considered moral.

Obviously young Aisha growing up in a patriarchal society is not socially equal to Mohammed. However, Mohammed gained his power through his first marriage to a powerful woman. So the patriarchy example isn't perfect. Then we come to age. Mohammed is more knowledgeable and experienced and is thus taking advantage of Aisha. However, young men are just as likely, if not more likely to treat a young woman badly than an older man. All of our moral judgments come from these legal ideas related to the age of the participants and the power disparity.

Lets say for the sake of argument that Mohammed and Aisha really did love one another. If the marriage was a proper match from their perspective, then it is a perfectly moral act. If Mohammed treated Aisha well within the confines of the cultural and legal context in which they lived, then it's a moral relationship regardless of the identity characteristics of the participants.

Not overly fond of this example, but if you're interested in the story itself read up on Aisha's later life, in which she was a figure of some power and influence, a leader, and fiercely devoted to the Prophet's memory and legacy. To go from no power to a great deal of power in later life is, aside from the sexual politics, a feature of many societies. In traditional societies power is as much about age as anything else.

It is not by accident that most cultures have some very common features of their moral code regarding murder, theft, rape, betrayal, lying, etc...

Lewis famously argued that this was proof of the existence of God, though it looks like as much of a proof for gene theory or Dawkins' "memes" if you ask me. There are simply inherent problems to communal human living that need to be addressed.

The argument in general seems to be down to the basis for legal authority. The laws themselves are always the similar, and at some level force is required to implement them (police etc) but now we're talking about what they are based on. Hypothetically speaking, couldn't it be literally anything?

[Parodite]

Don't think one can develop a moral code based on religious presuppositions of whatever nature to begin with. I mean... strictly speaking.

[Enki]

Not overly fond of this example, but if you're interested in the story itself read up on Aisha's later life, in which she was a figure of some power and influence, a leader, and fiercely devoted to the Prophet's memory and legacy. To go from no power to a great deal of power in later life is, aside from the sexual politics, a feature of many societies. In traditional societies power is as much about age as anything else.

That is kind of why i chose it, because the actual story is one of the greatest stories of female empowerment in history, and it's used as bludgeon to paint Mohammed as a mysoginist.

Lewis famously argued that this was proof of the existence of God, though it looks like as much of a proof for gene theory or Dawkins' "memes" if you ask me. There are simply inherent problems to communal human living that need to be addressed.

The argument in general seems to be down to the basis for legal authority. The laws themselves are always the similar, and at some level force is required to implement them (police etc) but now we're talking about what they are based on. Hypothetically speaking, couldn't it be literally anything?

I don't think it could be literally anything. I think it comes from within our nature, how we relate to ourselves, our environment and others.

For instance you can always tell a sociopathic cop from a decent guy by watching his face when you talk about whether or not what he's doing is right. They will both say, "But it's the law.", the one with a conscience will know that certain things are wrong, but that they are obligated to enforce the law. Some sociopaths will quite literally not understand that something can be illegal but arresting someone for it is the greater crime.

[Ibrahim]

I don't think it could be literally anything. I think it comes from within our nature, how we relate to ourselves, our environment and others.

But even one alien to people could be imposed, right? E.g. totalitarian states. Of course the more unnatural the system the more coercive it needs to be.

For instance you can always tell a sociopathic cop from a decent guy by watching his face when you talk about whether or not what he's doing is right. They will both say, "But it's the law.", the one with a conscience will know that certain things are wrong, but that they are obligated to enforce the law. Some sociopaths will quite literally not understand that something can be illegal but arresting someone for it is the greater crime.

Certainly true of more open societies

[Enki]

But even one alien to people could be imposed, right? E.g. totalitarian states. Of course the more unnatural the system the more coercive it needs to be.

A totalitarian state can only implement law, it cannot implement morality. What is moral doesn't change just because the state stipulates what you must do and how you must act.

[Ibrahim]

But even one alien to people could be imposed, right? E.g. totalitarian states. Of course the more unnatural the system the more coercive it needs to be.

A totalitarian state can only implement law, it cannot implement morality. What is moral doesn't change just because the state stipulates what you must do and how you must act.

I don't know, totalitarian states are always dictating morality and then enforcing their version of morality with laws. The moralizing tone of a lot of Stalinist propaganda is obvious. The mechanism is that the state makes you do X, but the concept is that it is right to do X because the Great Leader says so. Its also a general concept that laws ought to reflect morality, regardless of the type of state we are talking about.

[Enki]

But even one alien to people could be imposed, right? E.g. totalitarian states. Of course the more unnatural the system the more coercive it needs to be.

A totalitarian state can only implement law, it cannot implement morality. What is moral doesn't change just because the state stipulates what you must do and how you must act.

I don't know, totalitarian states are always dictating morality and then enforcing their version of morality with laws. The moralizing tone of a lot of Stalinist propaganda is obvious. The mechanism is that the state makes you do X, but the concept is that it is right to do X because the Great Leader says so. Its also a general concept that laws ought to reflect morality, regardless of the type of state we are talking about.

Sure, and its fun to moralize one's own self-interest. That doesn't mean that starving ten million people for the glory of the revolution wasn't evil.

[Mr. Perfect]

Ayn Rand developed a moral code free of religion.

IIRC her fundamental question was "is there right and wrong" and proceeded from there.

[Marcus]

Ayn Rand developed a moral code free of religion.

IIRC her fundamental question was "is there right and wrong" and proceeded from there.

Without transcendent authority, there is not nor can there be any "right" or any "wrong."

All there can be is whatever whomever thinks best at the moment.

And even that, e.g., Materialism/Naturalism, is a religion*.

• *: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[Mr. Perfect]

Could be. I was just putting it out there.

[Marcus]

Could be. I was just putting it out there.

I understand, Mr. P, I think it's a silly question in the first place.

Without transcendent authority, there can be no such thing as "moral" because "moral" is a metaphysical category.

Materialism/Naturalism (read "blind, purposeless evolution) cannot produce anything more than "what is."

It's all made-up from there.

[Ibrahim]

Without transcendent authority, there can be no such thing as "moral" because "moral" is a metaphysical category.

Wrong for two reasons.

1. "Moral" doesn't inherently mean transcendental.

Moral
1
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

2. Even if you think it does philosophical systems have articulated moral systems that are transcendent through reason alone. E.g. the categorical imperative posits moral absolutes exclusively through reason.

[Ibrahim]

But even one alien to people could be imposed, right? E.g. totalitarian states. Of course the more unnatural the system the more coercive it needs to be.

A totalitarian state can only implement law, it cannot implement morality. What is moral doesn't change just because the state stipulates what you must do and how you must act.

I don't know, totalitarian states are always dictating morality and then enforcing their version of morality with laws. The moralizing tone of a lot of Stalinist propaganda is obvious. The mechanism is that the state makes you do X, but the concept is that it is right to do X because the Great Leader says so. Its also a general concept that laws ought to reflect morality, regardless of the type of state we are talking about.

Sure, and its fun to moralize one's own self-interest. That doesn't mean that starving ten million people for the glory of the revolution wasn't evil.

You and I and most people probably agree about that. I'm just saying that this contrary moral system exists, even if it didn't prove appealing.