Philosophy Now Forum

Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system — under the name of ethics — which might itself have mystical foundations?

For example, we can see nearly the same values embraced by Plato also present in Gnosticism. The Demiurge turns into Yaldabaoth; the soul is a fragment of God, while the body is created by false gods, external to the true divine. Thus, what we call morality ends up belonging to the creators of the body, whereas ethics becomes associated with the one who gives the soul.

agora wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:46 pm Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots...

That premise doesn't work for me.
Who are these people who reject morality because of its religious roots? Are they actually just people with a secular conception of morality?

And doesn't that include anybody who thinks that in order for God to be good he woulds have to perform good deeds same as anyone else rather than those who argue counterintuitively that anything God does is by definition good even when he's murdering babies?

From what I gather, you’re strongly challenging the idea that whatever God does must be good—no matter how horrific it may be, like killing babies. I guess you’re referring to the kind of god Gnostics viewed as false. Based on what I’ve read in the apocryphal texts—especially the Gospel of Philip—it feels like the God being rejected there is the same one you’re intellectually critiquing. So in a way, we’re saying the same thing.

agora wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 8:50 pm From what I gather, you’re strongly challenging the idea that whatever God does must be good

Viewed from one direction, sure. From the other, I am strongly challenging the notion that the good must be god, or that morality is actually rooted in religion.

As an atheist I tend to think that religion is rooted in attempts to codify morality, rather than the other way round.

You said that you strongly reject the idea that the good must be God, or that morality is necessarily rooted in religion — just like the Gospel of Philip does when it criticizes the creator god. (The God of the Bible/Demiurge, not Monad)

agora wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 9:03 pm You said that you strongly reject the idea that the good must be God, or that morality is necessarily rooted in religion — just like the Gospel of Philip does when it criticizes the creator god. (The God of the Bible/Demiurge, not Monad)

Well I definitely prefer that to other religious ideas I have seen to do with morality

Knowing that people like you exist has brought me comfort. You’ve reminded me that I’m not alone in my thoughts. (I live in Turkey.)

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 8:17 pm

agora wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:46 pm Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots...

That premise doesn't work for me.
Who are these people who reject morality because of its religious roots? Are they actually just people with a secular conception of morality?

I had the same thought reading the op.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 8:17 pm That premise doesn't work for me.
Who are these people who reject morality because of its religious roots? Are they actually just people with a secular conception of morality?

And doesn't that include anybody who thinks that in order for God to be good he woulds have to perform good deeds same as anyone else rather than those who argue counterintuitively that anything God does is by definition good even when he's murdering babies?

3000 years - same old sophistry.

You managed to sneak Euthyphro's dilemma right under the radar. Is your conception of good/goodness (The Good) secular or religious?
Is murdering babies always bad; or is it always conceptualized/defined as bad?
If The Good entails murdering babies would that be good deed; or bad one?

For a moral skeptic you are perpetually confused. Why wouldn't murdering babies be good sometimes? It's not like you believe in an ultimate moral authority (by any name).

agora wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 10:34 am Knowing that people like you exist has brought me comfort. You’ve reminded me that I’m not alone in my thoughts. (I live in Turkey.)

I guess this stuff is more controversial over there.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 10:53 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 8:17 pm

agora wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:46 pm Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots...

That premise doesn't work for me.
Who are these people who reject morality because of its religious roots? Are they actually just people with a secular conception of morality?

I had the same thought reading the op.

It's only the premise and phrasing I didn't take to. I am not disinclined to the suggestion that secular morality is subject to that sort of ghost in the machine issue of just keeping the spooky stuff and trying not to think about it.

But I would be that way, for I have been unmasked as that most reprehensible of beings - the moral sceptic who tends to think this stuff is all just a little bit made up as we go along.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 12:14 pm But I would be that way, for I have been unmasked as that most reprehensible of beings - the moral sceptic who tends to think this stuff is all just a little bit made up as we go along.

Which part do you think is made up? Which part is it that you are "sceptical" about?

The part that the unlawful premeditated killing of babies is wrong; or the part where various groups (secular; or theistic; or jurisprudent) attempt to justify it as wrong?

I will buy your "moral scepticism" at face value; soon as you admit that that murdering babies may be good sometimes.

This Motte and Bailey bullshit is tiresome.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 12:10 pm

agora wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 10:34 am Knowing that people like you exist has brought me comfort. You’ve reminded me that I’m not alone in my thoughts. (I live in Turkey.)

I guess this stuff is more controversial over there.

Exactly. There’s little space here for discussing these things openly — people either cling to dogma or dismiss philosophy altogether. That’s why seeing someone respond thoughtfully means a lot to me.

agora wrote: ↑Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:46 pm Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system — under the name of ethics — which might itself have mystical foundations?

Good question, but one with a very straightforward answer: ontology dictates ethics...for any rationally-consistent system of morals, that is.

In other words, what you believe is real determines what you can think 'good' or 'evil' mean. Are these terms just fabrications or conventions of one person or one society? Or are they universals that should apply to all persons and societies at all times? Your answer is going to be determined, rationally speaking, by what you believe there is to "back" or "ground" the morals you think are right. It's the authorization behind the morality that's going to determine its scope and durability, and that authorization is going to come from what you suppose is "really real," so to speak, what the ultimate truth about the composition of our universe is.

So, for example, a religious moralist is going to say that what makes things "good" or "evil" is some sort of supernatural fact or authorization. But what is a secular moralist going to say? If he believes that our universe is a giant cosmic accident that proceeds on no particular moral imperatives and with a view to no particular purpose or telos, what can he say "morality" is? It can be no more than a contingent artifact of human invention, that no person is rationally obligated to pay attention to longer than he wishes to.

How does one construct a recommendable moral "belief system" out of that?