Religion v Ethics

[Wootah]

It is said that religion is the opiate of the masses.

How does ethics avoid a similar attack?

[JP Cusick]

Opiates are pain reducers and sleep inducers.

I do not use the opiate medications very often, but I have had health problems and after surgery when I was very grateful to have me some opiate relief.

I find it irritating that people abuse such medications which is screwing up a blessed thing for the rest of humanity who take care with the opiate medications.

And my understanding is that narcotics are really used by people to get a spiritual high and effect, instead of them just seeking God as a sensible person.

Religion is the lazy person's way to do ethics.

That is because you fail to see God instructing those sinful people.

I reject the abusive notion of "lazy" when people just lack proper motivation, and calling other people as lazy is just trying to use it as the motivation when people reject the pressure to obey evil commands.

Religion has always been in a constant struggle against the majority of humanity who resist and violate the ethical and moral standards of religion.

Need to know whether X is ethical, look it up, see if the revelation from God has something to say. You don't have to do the real hard word involved with real ethics.

Looking up the ethics in religious books is doing the hard work.

Just doing whatever ethics suits thy fancy is just being careless and irresponsible.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 11 by JP Cusick]

Calling a person immoral is totally a-ok, huh? But saying that some people are lazy would just be a step too far.

I'm really not convinced you have any consistent means of demonstrating ethics that are religiously motivated and have relevance to the real world.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

The comparison is that both ethics and religion restrict people. Both say don't kill so ideally an ethical person and a religious resonance are both 'sedated' by the opiate they follow to not kill.

Therefore I wonder how ethics is not also the opiate of the masses?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by McCulloch]

I don't think that is a negative.

You are almost saying school is the lazy way to learn. Well it is but that's a good thing....

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 7 by benchwarmer]

That's probably not relevant to the topic.

But I am close to concluding my view on the topic so I'll bite.

If fear is stopping some people from doing evil isn't religion therefore a good thing?

What stops an ethical man from breaking their ethics?

[JP Cusick]

Calling a person immoral is totally a-ok, huh? But saying that some people are lazy would just be a step too far.

I'm really not convinced you have any consistent means of demonstrating ethics that are religiously motivated and have relevance to the real world.

Calling a person out for their immorality is correctly doing an affront to their actions or lifestyle, but calling a person as "lazy" is an improper insult to their character.

I am following the principle of = Hate the sin but not the sinner. Matthew 5:43-48

To be hateful or negative to the sinner because of their sins or their inequities is not the right way, and it is not the way of the Gospel.

I would agree that my view is much different then that of the vast majority of this world.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 7 by benchwarmer]

That's probably not relevant to the topic.

Sorry, I was just trying to show the difference between the two. Feel free to ignore.

But I am close to concluding my view on the topic so I'll bite.

If fear is stopping some people from doing evil isn't religion therefore a good thing?

Only if you think fear is the best answer. Would you not prefer people do the right thing because they fully understand the situation and not out of simple fear?

On a slightly related note, are you basically conceding that religion relies on fear to accomplish its goal? I realize this is a tangent, but based on your statement above that's what it sounds like. Perhaps I read too much into that.

What stops an ethical man from breaking their ethics?

In short, nothing, if you mean an external source. Internally, an ethical man will not want to break their ethics because that would make it clear to others they are not really ethical. They will lose trust from others and perhaps lose pride in themselves.

Externally, the law of the land seems to work pretty well, but obviously not always. Ergo we have police and prisons for those who decide that common ethics an morals are not for them.

[2ndRateMind]

Seems to me Marx didn't understand Christianity. Marx saw Christianity as anaesthetising the working class to their lifetime toil, by promising rest and relief in the hereafter. I have a lot of time for Marx, but I am not uncritical of him. Particularly, the 'masses' (read, the absolutely poor) do deserve a better lot in life. But Christianity, properly understood and applied, would be the solution, not the problem.

Meanwhile, if Christianity is a movable ideology, ethics ungrounded in agreed principle is even more so. No doubt Trump thinks he is thoroughly ethical, despite the fact that his $billions, more equitably distributed, would save hundreds of thousands of lives. No doubt Trump thinks he is being thoroughly ethical when he threatens North Korea, and it's innocent peasant populace, with annhilation.

If so, I have news for the rich and powerful; Christianity is about love, and loving not only one's family, friends and proximate neighbours, but love for the whole of humanity, even one's enemies. And any ethics not grounded in this loving imperative to seek their best interests is just not ethics, and any Christianity not grounded similarly is just not Christianity.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

The comparison is that both ethics and religion restrict people. Both say don't kill so ideally an ethical person and a religious resonance are both 'sedated' by the opiate they follow to not kill.

Therefore I wonder how ethics is not also the opiate of the masses?

Hmmm. Maybe some would say that while religion is the imposition of a code of behaviour, ethics is the study of such codes, and others, their efficacy and justification. Thus, while religion may demand, say, dispatching an animal by cutting it's throat, ethics would want to know why such a practice is best, if the animal suffers, and whether meat is murder, and if not, why not?

Thus, while religion wants obedience, ethics (as an academic, philosophical field of study) wants reason. This seems to me to be the fundamental distinction.

Cheers, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

Hmmm. Maybe some would say that while religion is the imposition of a code of behaviour, ethics is the study of such codes, and others, their efficacy and justification. Thus, while religion may demand, say, dispatching an animal by cutting it's throat, ethics would want to know why such a practice is best, if the animal suffers, and whether meat is murder, and if not, why not?

I like this definition of ethics.

But at some point ethics needs to make a decision between right and wrong, and that decision would thereby become the moral / the morality.

We can not tolerate a lukewarm ethics which questions everything without making the decisions and thereby making a moral code.

Constant ethical searching without conclusion would in itself be immoral.

A conclusion in example: The animal suffers, the meat is murder, thereby that is immoral, and so to stop that is moral.