When religion and morality fail... who ya gonna call?

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, both morality and religion rely on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. It doesn't take faith to confront your own fears and desires. It takes a certain will and a certain mental quietness so as to clearly see how your fears and desires affect/drive you. This is the same mind as the 'religious' mind and I don't see too much conflict between logic and a clear, quiet, determined mind. I think logic actually comes from a clear, quiet, determined mind. I think the conflict occurs when people think they aren't supposed to think in order to be religious. They think because they read about giving up this and that, that they have to give up their ability to reason which is a misinterpretation. Dogen, a Zen guy, said 'think non-thinking'. Think non-thinking, the mind still pays attention to every detail, analyzes everything, but in the midst of noticing how the mind discriminates from moment to moment, the mind is transcended. Transcend is go beyond, but include. So the mind and it's usefullness to rationalize and lay stuff out in a concrete way isn't forgotten, it is transcended, understood for what it is, and then used as a tool rather than a prison.

[ QUOTE ]
What then is our answer? Where do we turn to for decisions on how to act?

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the self-reliance thing, shine the light inward, be yourself, understand your own relation to everything including yourself to yourself and the answers unfold in the process, that's the kicker, the answers can never be from some standardized system, they can only come spontaneously because to depend on some system is to become stale and outdated. That doesn't mean we can't learn from the past, to forget what we've learned would be irresponsible. The difficulty is that to find the answers, we have to forget ourselves in the present while still using all our mental faculties, to know while at the same time forgetting. Doing that is the art of thinking non-thinking, which is in a way, a non-doing, it's the paradox. My .02 - Stew

[bearly]

i can suggest you read a good sample of the writings of a.i.melden. google will give you lots of info. he was a real authority on the areas you mention: locke, hume (esp) and the social contract. i can also assure you, from conversations w/ him, that he clearly focuses on the prudential nature of morals and ethics. something that doesn't seem to have been brought up...............b

Morality is definitely GOOD for our society to have. And in many cases it is in the individuals best interest to act morally, yes. It is illogical to consider something wrong because it is inherently immoral. What makes it inherent? Nothing (assuming a lack of religion).

[lastchance]

Prisoner's dilemma.

Nothing is inherently logical, logic only works with assumptions. 2+2=4 is logical within the framework of mathematics. A moral action is logical within the framework of the human condition. It's certainly fuzzy logic considering the amount of variables involved, but it's logic nonetheless. I think us existing within the human condition is a safe assumption for ethics to make.

[college kid]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, both morality and religion rely on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is simply not true. Morality does not require faith as there are numerous set guildlines about morality which are and always have been agreed upon. The applications of these guidelines may differ between cultures, but the morality is there. Genocide with provocation or reason is usually agreed to be a bad thing no matter, for example.

In fact, I would go so far as to argue that morality is programmed into us via evolution and I would recommend you study evolutionary psychology and in particular Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil," which is a fine book. I'm a big fan of Shermer.

"
This is simply not true. Morality does not require faith as there are numerous set guildlines about morality which are and always have been agreed upon."

Like what? Not eating dead people? Not killing?
Not cheating on your girlfriend?
Not committing rape?

Who agrees on these things?
There was a society were canabalism was accepted. Killing happens all the time. These guidelines are not real.

This is my first post here and this thread seems to have many good points however I find it odd that none of you make mention of Plutarch's account of Numa. He clearly institutes religion as the sole basis for upholding morality. How does that repond to the question when religion fails is relatively simple. Augustine states Numa's theology and civil theologies at the time will all fail because they are not the one true religion. Morality will not fail when its the true religion. With regards to the faith basis, re-read the Suma, most notable the sections between Natural, Divine, and Human law