Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is one of my biggest issues towards religion. How can someone determine what is moral? Can this be determined by an authorities idea ("authoritarian" morality)? Or can it only be determined by the person themselves?

In Christian/Judaic thinking, morality is usually conceived as deriving from authority. You can determine what is moral by what an "authority" on morality tells you; the ultimate source is God, but you should also take heed of humans guided by God, such as the 12 apostles or St. Paul, because they speak with the same authority. Authority outweighs personal logic; if personal logic contradicts authority, this demonstrates that the logic must be wrong, not the authority. I say usually because I do know people who say this is not a genuine Christian idea. However, I have also talked to countless Christians who agree, and in fact, cannot even conceive of how someone could determine morals except by listening to authority.

I have usually conceived it in an opposite fashion. I think you can only determine morality through your own personal understanding. Unless you actually understand why your actions are moral on their own merit, I don't think you count as a moral actor; you are simply doing what you have been told, and would do it regardless of whatever "independent" merit it had. If God had said the opposite, then you could only conclude that the opposite was true. I cannot view someone who thinks this way as truly moral. Authority may be useful, because an intelligent teacher could possibly guide your mind towards realizing the logic of a certain rule, but their authority was only helpful if it ends up "clicking" to you. Otherwise, you are simply listening to authority for authorities sake, and there is not actually an moral element.

Where do people stand on this?

I see your point. No I don't think someone truly understands morals just because they make moral decisions based on authoritative influence. I agree that soeone can only define what is moral for themselves, but I do think some moral authority is needed. Not from God so much, but a standard of moral conduct is necessary.

The Bible and just knowing from right and wrong.

I think it depends on whether or not we are talking about morality at the level of the individual versus that of groups of people.

For instance, bank regulation can be seen as morally right, but the bankers themselves may not desire to act that way. Society itself may have a stronger moral code, but individuals themselves might not be moral by choice.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it depends on whether or not we are talking about morality at the level of the individual versus that of groups of people.

For instance, bank regulation can be seen as morally right, but the bankers themselves may not desire to act that way. Society itself may have a stronger moral code, but individuals themselves might not be moral by choice.
I'm not sure quite what you mean here. If the banker doesn't want to be regulated, then they almost certainly don't believe regulation is moral. I think groups could decide what is productive to society, but only on the individual basis can this concept be conflated with morality.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not sure quite what you mean here. If the banker doesn't want to be regulated, then they almost certainly don't believe regulation is moral. I think groups could decide what is productive to society, but only on the individual basis can this concept be conflated with morality.

sure, but if the moral axiom is "regulate the banks", the feelings of the banker are moot, at the level of a group of people.

or like, if you think murder is wrong, forcing people not to murder creates an overall moral society, though some people might not agree with it individually.

I suppose you could call that "productive", but thats really just semantics.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, but if the moral axiom is "regulate the banks", the feelings of the banker are moot, at the level of a group of people.

or like, if you think murder is wrong, forcing people not to murder creates an overall moral society, though some people might not agree with it individually.

I suppose you could call that "productive", but thats really just semantics.
I think if you are looking for your morals in group thinking, you're on the wrong path already. Yes, a group of people can force their ideas on others who disagree. They may even be justified in doing so, as a practical matter. But unless you actually agree, logically, with the group, I think its useless to appeal to them as a moral authority.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think if you are looking for your morals in group thinking, you're on the wrong path already.

I'd agree personally, but I don't think its impossible for someone to view morality as a group level phenomenon rather than an individual one.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, a group of people can force their ideas on others who disagree. They may even be justified in doing so, as a practical matter. But unless you actually agree, logically, with the group, I think its useless to appeal to them as a moral authority.

the location of the appeal to moral authority is the part of morality that will always be subjective though

I personally appeal to objective suffering, however, as people have pointed out to me before, there is no absolute logic that suggests this is the best way to look at it. Similar arguments could be made for social cohesion, biblical dictates, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd agree personally, but I don't think its impossible for someone to view morality as a group level phenomenon rather than an individual one.
I would say, it was their own decision to view it in that manner; not some actual objective property of the group. I believe in trying to benefit my community, but that is because I agree with and cherish it, not because I think there is some absolute force that compels me to do so.

Originally posted by inimalist
the location of the appeal to moral authority is the part of morality that will always be subjective though

I personally appeal to objective suffering, however, as people have pointed out to me before, there is no absolute logic that suggests this is the best way to look at it. Similar arguments could be made for social cohesion, biblical dictates, etc.
Well that is my point; all of those being equal, it can only be you that chooses which one you will follow. If God really existed, then we could say there was an absolute logic to follow (that said, I would dispute this nonetheless). In a universe with no absolute, you need to make up your own mind because there is no one, true, holy roadmap of morality to follow.

If someone wants to follow the Bible because they think it teaches a good lesson, that's great; if they want to follow it because they think there is some sort of authoritarian carrot/stick system being applied to them, then I think they are severely misguided.

Not that it's any surprise, Kandy and I agree on a fair amount, but I'm mostly in agreement. I can have easily devised real-world scenarios that involve religious "sins" but that don't objective increase suffering for anyone involves and actually increase the happiness of all involved. When asked why it is wrong, there is no logical ground to stand upon and it ends up as an appeal to authority.

It spooks me to think of people who aren't "moral actors" as Kandy calls them. I always prided myself on believing what I did because I agreed with it, not because I was simply told it. Probably why I'm not Christian anymore.

Fortunately, what people consider moral in day to day terms has more to do with cultural norms than religious ones anymore, which I'm thankful for. The laughably archaic rules from the Bible that we ignore are exhibit A, our approach to sex is Exhibit B, and I'm sure there's lots of others I'm forgetting. Not everyone even realizes this, either from lack of Bible understanding or just social obliviousness, but most people pick and choose their morality without strict regard to religion.

...

I've struggled with trying to determine if I think we can "know" morality, or if it is entirely the subjective experience of the person that determines it. There's lots of relevant points to be made on that topic, but none have been able to sway me fully.

...

Anyway Kandy, a quick rebuttal to your point might be simply that God says it because it is inherently good. Therefore it satisfies both a devotion to God and an adherence to morality. Such an interpretation wouldn't be exclusively authoritarian.