What is the Issue with Moral Relativity? The Issue with Religion and Morals!
Religion and Morals
We all know what religious fanatics love to use in arguments, "Through god we have morality, why would you have morals without him?" We hear it time and time again, most of them not even realizing what they imply with that sentence, but we will get to that later. We can all admit most religious holy books, canonical religious figures, can have a good message and meaning behind what they say. We see some examples in the bible, love your neighbors, don't judge, don't steal, murder, or envy. While all those, and those lessons are all agreeable and all well and good, nobody is arguing with that. Here is the issue we take with the argument, why do you need a god to justify doing such things?
Let's tackle a subject of debate, the Ten Commandments, a source of moral justification for Jews and Christians alike, hand carved and handed over to Moses, by "god himself". Ignoring the first 3 Commandments further express gods inferiority complex, the ladder commandments provide excellent ways to live by. Don't envy, don't kill, don't lie or cheat, we can all agree those are objectively good lessons. I wouldn't like to be killed, I don't want my property stolen, so obviously shouldn't do stuff like that. While the commandements are all fine and dandy, you know what don't see on that list, RAPE! You would think something so damaging to someones psyche, and scaring mentally and physically would make the cut. I guess it was the 11th commandment or something right? You would think that, it only makes sense that an all powerful god would punish such a heinous act. WELL YOU'RE DEAD WRONG!Infact in the bible, the punishment for commiting such a act is simply paying off the womans father like the piece of property she is and then wedding her. Yes!! You heard right!, you pay her father, then marry her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
Doesn't sound like a way of living I would like to be forced on me by the government. This horrible act is not only endoursed and swept to the side in the bible, it is not considered at all important enough to make the commandments, all because it didn't reach the same stature as things like Keeping holy the sabbath day, or not worshipping other gods. Gods ego needs stroked way more than the saftey and well being of other humans.
Now while the bible does not necessarily promote rape, it does just give it a pass. However the bible, being written in such a MANcentric time, with MALE leaders, and a stunning lack of any female political figures. We see the misstreatment of women often in the bible, and continue to today. These people just see it as fine, simply because their holy book says it to be true. Not as if a higher being of omnipitonce could see the future and see what prominent people women become. Places like the middle east will stone a woman to death for driving, and they must be covered from head to toe, not just their own women, they try to force it on visitors and tourists also. Now to those of you that may be think to yourself, "I don't see this in america", let me tell you a little story about myself.
I am getting married very soon, and me and my fiancee were seeing counseling with her pastor, she is of course christian. He had asked us "Do you guys believe in a 50/50 marriage, or one that the bible teaches?" He explained that the bible teaches that a marriage needs to have a male leader, that can make all the decisions and be incharge of everything, and told us that the woman could take care of the kids, cooking, laundry, and finances. He then told us a story about how his wife got a wonderful job that she loved once, but because he wanted to move somewhere else and start a church she had to give it all up. For what? She isn't nearly as happy, he admits it. However the point of his story was to show us, she listened like the little submissive wife should.
Now not only completely underminding womens achievments, and making very light of rape. Nowhere in the bible does it outline raping a man or a child, both are acceptable as far as we know. Now we haven't even gotten to slavery yet.
Now slavery in the bible is seen as completely justifiable, it even outlines how to treat your slaves if you have any of them. Now we all know now that slavery is wrong several years of hurt, pain, and civil rights movements have showed us, man is equal, no man should own another. Now you might argue, this waas written for the time where slavery was okay, people didn't exactly have jobs all over the place. To that I say, yes people working to pay off a debt did happen often, it is known as indentured servitude. While I woud still argue that is wrong, it does go with the time becauuse of the lack of jobs factoring in, which I will also rebuttle, god sees the future, HE SHOULD KNOW!
We obviiously can seee that these holy books, while holding many good lessons and values, are absolutely riddled with completely absurde claims for what is moral and immoral. It is utterly rediculious how people can jutify trying to force their morals on others, while their own holy book contains completely out of date ideals.
Morals Don't come from religion
Now let's all hold off for a second and follow me for second. For those religious people out there, I want you all to imagine something up with me. Take your religion, and subtract any god from the equation and pretend for a ssecond that your religion is a farce, however you don't know it. Imagine what the world would be to you simply run by religious morality, without any real influence from a deity. Now many people believe that our only sense of morality comes from the existence of religion. Of course those same people actually believe their deity exists, thus justifying the moral code emplaced by the religious heirarchy. This is how atheists veiw the world, that there is no real justification behind the acts of religious beyond their pressumption their deity exists.
Now continue to entirtain the idea that in this hypothetical a god doesn't exist, however religion does. Now you have people trying to propagate their points of views, and influence their moral code onto the followers without any real justification.
To say our morals exist because of religion is down right insulting to even suggest. As an atheist myself I see the idea of religion as just a means to control people, by threatening eternal hell fire. Yes many religions consist of many good, ethical, and moral, ideals, philosophys, and sentiments; however the argument that all our morals come from religions of the past and present is so eaasily refuted. Taking the influence of a all powerful deity out of the equation, only leads to influence. The mere existence of different morals, and points of veiws, shows the falsity of the statement as being self evident. Simply because of different opinions. Not only from the non-religious, but the various religions, and even the different denominations of the religions.
Simply because I think killing is bad, and the bible says killing is bad, or that I think stealing is wrong and the bible says so also, does not mean I get my morals from the bible. It is simply what was best for society, both at the time and or what continues to be best in the present, for society that determines agreeable moral standards.
Morals from gods
Many people, usually of the Abrahamic Faiths, assume all of our morality comes from god himself. This is completely different from the religion one, because to believe this one, one must assume that a deity exists and decides to let us know what is good and what is wrong. One mustt assume that all humans are encoded with the exact same sense of morality and ethical code from the start, and truly knows what is moral V.S. what is immoral.
Now right out the gate there are already numerous issues with this very concept to assume we are born with the same morality. We grow up in different households, in different parts of the world, and are all influenced and taught different ways thoughts and feelings. To assume god codes us with morality, is just ignoring all the factors of ones situation and influence. As if people in a small tribe in the middle of nowhere has the same moral code as christian filled america, they just choose to ignore god, and do what they want.
Now here is the thing, depending on the type of christian you ask you'll get various explanations to this. Free will, which okay I guess we can choose to be moral or immoral, but that doesn't at all explain the fact that I feel in my heart gay marriage is perfectly moral. If it was coded into me wouldn't you think I'd feel at the least alittle dissmay? If you ask some other christians they'll explain that satan is the one influencing your immorality, he makes you want to do bad things and makes you like it. If that is true then why would I feel remourse if I killed someone? Why do I feel hesitation to steal, or feel bad when lying? If satan was really influencing me and he was making me like it wouldn't I feel over joyed to murder or steal, would I not be able to lie with ease and a smile o my face. I don't simply because god doesn't write in morality. Not just because he doesn't exist, but because the existence of objective morals again provide the simpliest and the easiest refutations against the very notion.
The big question I have, and the soul reason for this article, is simply what is wrong with objective morality?
Why must the religious claim my morals are written on my heart by god, or that they are simply influenced by religion, this isn't what I would think on my own. Assuming that everybody iis pure evil, and needs influence like god and religion in their life to function in society is cynical at best. We determine morals based on what works best for society, both forr those around us and for ourselves. We are inherently tribal creatures, and since the dawn of man, have been inclinied to do what is best for others because it helps us too. I don't burn peoples houses down because I don't want it done to me, I don't murder because I don't want to be killed, I don't steal because I like my stuff and would very much like to keep all of it. How hard is that to grasp. Societal moralic norms inherently grow in any society, of any kind. Because it is what is best for the group and the individual.
Now when it comes to objective subjects, like gay marrige, freedoms of any kind, abortion, or even public stoning to death, or slavery for that matter. All of those either banned by the biblle or endoursed. Why is having different opinions a bad thing, why is objectivity wrong? Why must there be an absolute standard or agreement as to what is right or wrong? Having opinions generates discussion, generating discussion gets attention, getting attention, creates action, and action creates change. That change can be for the better or for the worse, but you never know unless a discussion is generated by an argument of different opinions in the first place. The more we discuss something the more we will learn about it, and grow to be more informed and make more informed decisions and things, which hopefully creates better living, better conditions, more jobs or wealth, or even safer proccesess. But it all has to start with the objective opinions.
It was once not so bad to murder, and not wrong to own a person, or rape is more than paying the dad. Now we realized we don't need to be so violent, nobody is a lesser person, and rape isn't cool and is traumatizing. Those changes were bred by the arguments, discussions, and objective opinions and moralitys of others.