This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Secular morality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this article should be merged into a broader article morality and religion, although it might have potential if such an article was so large that it needed to use summary style for this issue. Richard001 ( talk) 08:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
On that note, it might make sense to merge this with the article Secular ethics. They seem similar. Mathmitch7 ( talk) 20:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
On the first side of the argument, the information needs to be expanded. There are some people who argue using certain indicators that the non-religious are simple less moral in general. End stop. Even if the non-religiou themselves profess to believe in morality. There are some studies indicating that religious people contribute more in time and money to charities than the non-religious do cited in this line of argument.
That's all tangential to the main topic, however, which is whether or not morality can have meaning if it's not considered to be objective and supernatural but is instead created by naturalistic emotions coupled with simple reasoning. This is a very common religious argument, and it can be expanded further using all kind of analogies, anecdotes, contrasts, and so on.
On the other side, the essential rejoinder is that (a)the religious have cherry-picked and cafeteria picked their notions of spiritual morality to be more or less no different than secular ethics, so what's the point in all this? [The practical, public policy implications of the two moral sets are the same]. (b)There should be no reason to ask 'why' or 'how' a moral conscience comes into being, we should just obey it anyway-- it's as inherently non-nonsensical as asking 'why' or 'how' we experience the desire to breathe. Hitchens makes the point that we should just assume that a innate moral code exists in everyone and proceed from there, not questioning where the assumption comes from.
This should be expanded to include newer ideas based on evolutionary psychology-- such as memes-- as to exactly how the mental impulses to do good things evolved over time. Some would argue, taking a bit of a social Darwinist view, that since the people today with certain moral ideas have outlasted and outlived those in the past without those moral ideas having evolved in their brains-- we can view ourselves as superior. Superior = Winning the game, so to speak. This would answer the question posed by the religious as to why one evolutionary impulse should be obeyed verses the other- because one is stronger.
Standing above all of this is the idea that morality is a fantasy. This comes from two viewpoints-- the hedonistic/materialistic 'life-is-what-you-make-it' group and then the more pluralistic, 'all-is-one' group. Both ideas need expansion. The latter more importantly, since many in the Eastern religious tradition would argue that binary good/evil distinctions do not exist but all morality is a matter of shades of gray or multiple truths co-existing. Of course, this mindset is highly distinct from the former group, which is personified well by Camus.
All in all, much work needs to be done. Cousin Kevin ( talk) 02:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's subtle, not blatant. It just needs work. Comment:
Lede. Defines the subject as addressing the question of whether religion is necessary for moral behavior. This is probably a notable topic, but should be sourced. Lede's don't always need a source, but this one should have one. Another way to define the topic might be "...addresses how morality is defined without religion" or something along those lines.
POV issues:
Again, this isn't a blatant POV issue, it's borderline. It just seems to favor religious positions with slightly undue weight. How to fix? Add some info on how non-religious folks base and define their morals. That serves as a balance to accusations by religious leaders that there cannot be morals without religion (an idea with which I'm sure many athiests would disagree). There's a lot more that this article needs, but that will address the immediate issue. Airborne84 ( talk) 05:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well if there are far more Christians than atheists in the US they would make up a bigger % of the prison population and as you'd see in documentaries a lot of people who used to be atheist become religious in jail so that pushes the % of religious inmates higher. 86.45.226.161 ( talk) 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
This article needs to cover the treatment of the subject by professional philosophers - too much mention of Dawkins et al. who are amateurs in the subject. Ben Finn ( talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not merge this article into Ethics and religion? Thus we can avoid the risk of POV forking. Mange01 ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
A few Christian groups, (Focus on the Family being the most notable) have been using the following excerpt from the trial when Clarence Darrow was making arguments to the judge during sentencing: "This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor... Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it?... It is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university?"
It's been used to argue that objective morality cannot exist if our ultimate authority is our own genes. Is this considered noteworthy in the discussion, given the high-profile organization using it? Atari25 ( talk) 22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There are possibilites to merge this article into other articles (as noted in sections above). I wouldn't support such a move since there's plenty of material for this article and the others mentioned. In a few years, I suspect that they will grow (I actually plan to contribute more—just haven't had much time).
On a side note, I find it interesting that the article "Morality and Religion" is only a redirect to "Ethics in Religion". Morality and ethics are two different things. Whether they should be considered two different things or whether the nuances make much sense to the average Wikipedia reader doesn't change the fact that there is a vast body of literature out there on both topics. There is also plenty of literature that discusses the differences between the two—and if it makes sense to differentiate between the two.
In that light, I suspect that these articles will become more fully developed in the long-term. Merging them now will just cause them to be split back out later. Given that, I'd support leaving as is. Merging "Morality and Religion" with "Morality without Religion" might make sense eventually, when the "Morality and Religion" article exists as more than a redirect. — Airborne84 ( talk) 21:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose changing the name to "Secular morals". This would be more in line with the name of the article on Secular ethics.
The issue that might result is that there could then be proposals to merge the article with Secular ethics. I don't see a huge issue with that though, because the content of the article should drive a merge like that, and the same proposal could be made about this article and Secular Ethics now. The question is really if morals and ethics are distinct enough to merit their own separate articles. Many authors make no distinction between morals and ethics, but some do. So, I don't see a problem with keeping separate articles, at least for now.
I welcome other editors to weigh in on the proposed name change. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 14:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I support merging with Secular ethics. Both articles are written about philosophy and can be merged.-- Taranet ( talk) 06:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad there is reference to belief in an afterlife (avoidance of hell) as religious motivation for being good. It is a most important aspect of religion in general. Joseph Meisenhelder ( talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Secular morality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this article should be merged into a broader article morality and religion, although it might have potential if such an article was so large that it needed to use summary style for this issue. Richard001 ( talk) 08:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
On that note, it might make sense to merge this with the article Secular ethics. They seem similar. Mathmitch7 ( talk) 20:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
On the first side of the argument, the information needs to be expanded. There are some people who argue using certain indicators that the non-religious are simple less moral in general. End stop. Even if the non-religiou themselves profess to believe in morality. There are some studies indicating that religious people contribute more in time and money to charities than the non-religious do cited in this line of argument.
That's all tangential to the main topic, however, which is whether or not morality can have meaning if it's not considered to be objective and supernatural but is instead created by naturalistic emotions coupled with simple reasoning. This is a very common religious argument, and it can be expanded further using all kind of analogies, anecdotes, contrasts, and so on.
On the other side, the essential rejoinder is that (a)the religious have cherry-picked and cafeteria picked their notions of spiritual morality to be more or less no different than secular ethics, so what's the point in all this? [The practical, public policy implications of the two moral sets are the same]. (b)There should be no reason to ask 'why' or 'how' a moral conscience comes into being, we should just obey it anyway-- it's as inherently non-nonsensical as asking 'why' or 'how' we experience the desire to breathe. Hitchens makes the point that we should just assume that a innate moral code exists in everyone and proceed from there, not questioning where the assumption comes from.
This should be expanded to include newer ideas based on evolutionary psychology-- such as memes-- as to exactly how the mental impulses to do good things evolved over time. Some would argue, taking a bit of a social Darwinist view, that since the people today with certain moral ideas have outlasted and outlived those in the past without those moral ideas having evolved in their brains-- we can view ourselves as superior. Superior = Winning the game, so to speak. This would answer the question posed by the religious as to why one evolutionary impulse should be obeyed verses the other- because one is stronger.
Standing above all of this is the idea that morality is a fantasy. This comes from two viewpoints-- the hedonistic/materialistic 'life-is-what-you-make-it' group and then the more pluralistic, 'all-is-one' group. Both ideas need expansion. The latter more importantly, since many in the Eastern religious tradition would argue that binary good/evil distinctions do not exist but all morality is a matter of shades of gray or multiple truths co-existing. Of course, this mindset is highly distinct from the former group, which is personified well by Camus.
All in all, much work needs to be done. Cousin Kevin ( talk) 02:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's subtle, not blatant. It just needs work. Comment:
Lede. Defines the subject as addressing the question of whether religion is necessary for moral behavior. This is probably a notable topic, but should be sourced. Lede's don't always need a source, but this one should have one. Another way to define the topic might be "...addresses how morality is defined without religion" or something along those lines.
POV issues:
Again, this isn't a blatant POV issue, it's borderline. It just seems to favor religious positions with slightly undue weight. How to fix? Add some info on how non-religious folks base and define their morals. That serves as a balance to accusations by religious leaders that there cannot be morals without religion (an idea with which I'm sure many athiests would disagree). There's a lot more that this article needs, but that will address the immediate issue. Airborne84 ( talk) 05:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well if there are far more Christians than atheists in the US they would make up a bigger % of the prison population and as you'd see in documentaries a lot of people who used to be atheist become religious in jail so that pushes the % of religious inmates higher. 86.45.226.161 ( talk) 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
This article needs to cover the treatment of the subject by professional philosophers - too much mention of Dawkins et al. who are amateurs in the subject. Ben Finn ( talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not merge this article into Ethics and religion? Thus we can avoid the risk of POV forking. Mange01 ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
A few Christian groups, (Focus on the Family being the most notable) have been using the following excerpt from the trial when Clarence Darrow was making arguments to the judge during sentencing: "This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor... Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it?... It is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university?"
It's been used to argue that objective morality cannot exist if our ultimate authority is our own genes. Is this considered noteworthy in the discussion, given the high-profile organization using it? Atari25 ( talk) 22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
There are possibilites to merge this article into other articles (as noted in sections above). I wouldn't support such a move since there's plenty of material for this article and the others mentioned. In a few years, I suspect that they will grow (I actually plan to contribute more—just haven't had much time).
On a side note, I find it interesting that the article "Morality and Religion" is only a redirect to "Ethics in Religion". Morality and ethics are two different things. Whether they should be considered two different things or whether the nuances make much sense to the average Wikipedia reader doesn't change the fact that there is a vast body of literature out there on both topics. There is also plenty of literature that discusses the differences between the two—and if it makes sense to differentiate between the two.
In that light, I suspect that these articles will become more fully developed in the long-term. Merging them now will just cause them to be split back out later. Given that, I'd support leaving as is. Merging "Morality and Religion" with "Morality without Religion" might make sense eventually, when the "Morality and Religion" article exists as more than a redirect. — Airborne84 ( talk) 21:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose changing the name to "Secular morals". This would be more in line with the name of the article on Secular ethics.
The issue that might result is that there could then be proposals to merge the article with Secular ethics. I don't see a huge issue with that though, because the content of the article should drive a merge like that, and the same proposal could be made about this article and Secular Ethics now. The question is really if morals and ethics are distinct enough to merit their own separate articles. Many authors make no distinction between morals and ethics, but some do. So, I don't see a problem with keeping separate articles, at least for now.
I welcome other editors to weigh in on the proposed name change. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 14:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I support merging with Secular ethics. Both articles are written about philosophy and can be merged.-- Taranet ( talk) 06:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad there is reference to belief in an afterlife (avoidance of hell) as religious motivation for being good. It is a most important aspect of religion in general. Joseph Meisenhelder ( talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)