Changes

It is necessary at the outset to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously[[File:Morality. gif|right|300px]]'''Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities ''' consists of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct right and wrong in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal one's personal conduct. Various forms of what is right [[atheism]] and fitting[[libertarianism]] can mislead someone into ignoring the importance of morality in guiding him to a productive life.

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that morality is distinct from the [[Image:morality.gif|thumb|law]]Thomas E. Brewton wrote in ''Moral Models from Mainstream Media'' <blockquote>"Many secular writers and scholars say a clear and decent moral philosophy may , but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be and has been developed without recourse to mysticismbased on morality, as religion is. There whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no way inherent connection.Natural Law supporters point to proveexamples such as [[slavery]], objectivelywhich was once legal in many places, that any religion but is truer than any other. On the other handnow illegal, basing because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a moral philosophy on duty, loyalty, and “women causal connection between morality and children first” can producelaw, as clearly according to this example and has producedmany others there is, a set of principles for living a just but would say that there is no ''inherent'' connection: and proper life thus say that does law is not require a belief in a deity or other prop outside of recognition of human fellowshipbased on morality.

It should One commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town center after 21:00 were to be noted that the western world's first examples of philosophyinstituted, in the Greek city statesan effort to reduce pollution. Then, did imagine that someone is caught in fact arise out of their religious beliefsthe town centen after 21:00 riding a bike. Both Plato and Aristotle acknowledged a single Divine source as the origin An advocate of natural law would suggest the cosmos andperson not be punished, ipso factobecause bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the origin of being or existence itself. Plato specifically believed moral issue in making the immortality of the human soul, law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not as a matter of mysticism, but bike is a vehicle as developed in philosophical logic. This appears most clearly in his dialog, defined by the "Phaedostatute," [[http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html]] in which Socrates's sorrowful friends visit him in prison, just as he is about to drink the hemlock poison. He comforts them with the certainty and base punishment on that his soul is about to pass over into a new realm.

One of Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the charges upon which he was condemned law should not be used to death by enforce morality.Instead they believe that morality is actually the Athenian Assembly was leading basis for much of the youth astray from the manylaw.Laws against theft, syncretistic gods brought into cosmopolitan Athens via for example, are based on the cityidea that taking someone else's vast foreign trade. Plato, using the voice of Socrates, argued that there property is only a single Divinity, and that Divinity is the source of moral understandingmorally wrong.

Secularists start with the assumption that concepts such as duty, loyalty, ''See also:'' [[Religion and “women and children first” already exist as the foundation blocks for constructing a set of moral principles that will be independent of a belief in a deity. But, where did they come from? Again, in historical fact, those basic concepts – duty, loyalty, and “women and children first” – all arose under political regimes rooted in religious beliefs. It was in those codes that the earliest known statements of such basic principles occurred.morality]]

Every code Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of law Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the western world, such as Hammurabi's Code [context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.wsutheconservativevoice.educom/~deearticle/MESO/CODE9332.HTMhtml "Morality and Political Order"]] from around 1770 BC, has predicated the official state god as its source of legitimacy. Around 1500 BC, Moses in the same way transmitted the Ten Commandments from God to the Israelite people. In every case the formulaic structure is the same. The ruler or spiritual leader rules by the power and grace of God, and the ruler's law code is always seen as bringing God's moral justice to his people. Why should this be uniformly the case? Eric Voegelin and Friedrich Hayek provide an understanding.Thomas Brewton</ref>

Eric VoegelinAccording to some theists, covers this question in magisterial fashion in "Israel only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.Janine M. Ramsey:{{QuoteBox|Evil and Revelationgood do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing)," one of the five volumes in his "Order and Historyholy God." Dr. Voegelin notes that religion and morality These are not "things" or "objects" that a single person[[Subjectivism|subjective]] opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, or a committee ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of intellectualsGod Himself that He has built into every human being, sat down and conjured every human being is responsible to live up during a conference meetingto those standards. He found it necessary to make this reality clear, in distinction to And the modern-day, liberal-socialist view that societies and their political structure are simply "on the spot" creations absence of the minds of morally relativistic human intellectualsgood defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

That misconceptionOne standard objection to this view is the [[Euthyphro]] dilemma, for exampleposed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because [[Divine command theory|the root Gods love (approve of , command) it]], or if the disastrous savagery produced by the French Revolutionary intellectuals' "ideas" about a perfect socialistic governmentGods love certain things because they are just and right. As present-day French intellectual André Maurois observed in his "A History of France," If the French intellectualsformer, unlike their English and American contemporariesthen it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, had never had so much as five minutes actual experience in self-governmentbut arbitrary whims. In contrastIf the latter, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the English and their American political heirs had struggled for centuries to hammer out their unwritten constitution governing the rights and privileges of individuals under lawright thing, against but they are not made the crownright thing simply because God commanded them. Those political understandings were bound up in their religious understandings of the duty of sovereigns and subjects Morality would then need to God. No English kinghave some further, or Continental sovereign, could claim legitimacy without the blessings independent ground which might be discoverable independent of the Christian churchreligion.

== Morality and According to the Law ==National Institutes of Health: [[Moral intelligence]] (MI) "can be referred to as human's capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to apply moral principles to humans' intentions, goals, beliefs, values, and actions."<ref>[Investigation of moral intelligence’s predictive components in students of Shahid Beheshti university of medical sciences (SBMU)], ''Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine''. 2020; 13: 13.Published online 2020 Sep 20. doi: 10.18502/jmehm.v13i13.4389</ref>

Morality can be distinguished from law or from justice according to the way in which the latter is publicly enforced and sanctioned through the power of the state[[Howard Gardner]], while the former is regarded as a private matter where wrongs are to noted intelligence expert who developed the moral discredit [[Theory of a person but not such as to allow legal recourse for those wronged. Complaints are often made about the absence multiple intelligences|multiple intelligence]] methodology of such a distinction, measuring intelligence suggested that virtue or morality cannot be or ought not be legislated, or about its presence, that the decline of private morality calls for a public moral intelligence may merit being included in his multiple intelligence model.<ref>[http://infed.org/mobi/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-and legal remedy. The distinction is real enough-education/ Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences and its presence reveals another boundary between polynomic domains of value.education]</ref>

The ultimate Keld Jensen wrote in ''Forbes'' magazine that moral evaluation of an action concerns the intentionintelligence directly follows [[emotional intelligence]] as it deals with "integrity, responsibility, sympathy, and [[forgiveness]]. Many actions innocent in themselves may be immoral because of The way you treat yourself is the motive. That motive may be difficult for way other persons to knowpeople will treat you. It may even be impossible for others Keeping commitments, maintaining your integrity, and being honest are crucial to knowmoral intelligence."<ref>[https: thus the emphasis (as in the example cited by Jesus of adultery committed in the heart -//www.forbes.com/sites/keldjensen/2012/04/12/intelligence- Matthew 5:27) is that morality is morality even if wrongs are known only -overrated-what-you-really-need-to the agent (and to God). The moral sanction of religion-succeed/ Intelligence Is Overrated: What You Really Need To Succeed] by Keld Jensen, therefore''Forbes'', is a much different matter than the moral sanction of law 4/12/2012</ref> See also: [[Empathy]]== Work ethic ==[[File:Niall Ferguson. The jpg|thumbnail|200px|right |The [[Harvard University]] historian [[Niall Ferguson]] declared: "Through a mixture of privacy (hard work and thrift the right against self-incrimination, where a judicial wrong has been committed and the state must prove culpable motive) protects the individual's self-knowledge [[Protestantism|Protestant]] societies of motive from the law North and West Atlantic achieved the statemost rapid economic growth in history. Individuals are properly at legal liberty to pursue actions that are not judicial wrongs for good reasons"<ref>[http://blog.tifwe.org/the-protestant-work-ethic-alive-well-in-china/ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China] By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, bad reasons, or no reasons; 2012</ref> ]]''See also:'' [[Work ethic]] and the morality of those actions is [[Work ethic#Building a private, personal matter, or strong work ethic|Building a matter of interpersonal judgment on a level of "mere" morality. strong work ethic]]

The absence of a distinction between morality and justice is a kind of moralism[[Bible]] has many verses advocating industriousness. The principle that all moral wrongs should be legally sanctioned as judicial wrongs, erasing the distinction between morality and justice, may be called judicial moralism<ref>*[https://www. Usually this means generalizing the morality of intention into the morality of action rather than the oppositeopenbible.info/topics/hard_work Bible versus on working hard], which would simply evaluate actions as right or wrong, without qualifying the judgment by any consideration of motive or intentionOpenBible.org*[https: although this does happen in tort law it is called "strict liability//www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-work/ 20 Bible Verses about Work]," and some legal scholars, including Richard Epstein [BibleStudyTools.org*[httphttps://www.friesianchristianity.com/chicago.htm]bible/bible-verses-about-hard-work-85 Bible versus on hard work], believe all torts should be interpreted according to strict liabilityChristianity. However, strict liability would also make things much easier for prosecutors in criminal cases, and it is now becoming common for laws to be passed that ignore motives and intentions (the mens rea)com*[https://www. Thus, "money laundering" laws, which require reporting to the government the transfers of certain amounts of cash or bearer financial instruments, although supposedly written to catch drug dealers womansday.com/life/g30618770/bible-verses-hard-work/ 15 Bible Verses About Hard Work and their agentsDetermination], are typically enforced against innocent people who are either ignorant of such an obscure law or who do not believe their financial privacy in the course of innocent transactions is any of the governmentWoman's businessDay*[https://christian. But it doesn't matter how innocent the money or the motives arenet/resources/bible-verses-about-hard-work/ 40 Bible Verses About Hard Work For God], Christian. This trend net</ref> [[Puritan]] society in criminal law is, of course, tyranny [[New England]] in the 17th and injustice18th century exemplified the work ethic.

== Buddist Morality based on evolution==Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

'''The Pancha ShilaDr. Frans de Waal argues that primates are social animals, or five moral precepts:''' 1and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. Avoid killingHe maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, or harming any living thingbut argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

2. Avoid stealing -- taking what is not yours He points to takethe display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others.<ref>New York Times: [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral. html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

3. Avoid sexual irresponsibilityHowever, which for monks and nuns means celibacythese arguments presume evolution to be true.The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

4Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature. Avoid lying’<br />'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, or any hurtful speechJune 1998. </ref>}}

5. Avoid alcohol Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and drugs which diminish clarity the justification of consciousnessmorality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

1. Generosity (dana) 2. Moral discipline (shila) 3. Patience and tolerance (kshanti) 4. Energy (virya) 5. Meditation (dhyana) 6. Wisdom or (full-) consciousness (prajña) 7. Skilled methods (upaya) 8. Vow or resolution (pranidhana) 9. The ten powers or special abilities (dashabala) 10. Knowledge (jñana)[http''See also://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/buddhamorals.html'' [[Atheism and morality]]

The lifestyle of the religious Jew is based on certain underly­ing theological assumptions about God '''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and His role in historyyellow. Clearly, the belief that He What is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Who revealed His Law to Israel at Mt. Sinai, has profound practical implications my justification for the Jew distinguishing between blue and for all humanity. That man is accountable to God for his deeds and that he is ex­pected to realize a spiritual purpose in his life transform him from a highly developed animal into a transcendental being. Most certainly, then, Judaism does affirm basic faith principlesyellow? I can see they are different.<br>

Unlike many other faiths'''C:''' Well, howeverthat is an excellent justification, Judaism I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?<br> '''R:''' By my feelings.<br>(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref> In practice, atheists may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref> Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not regard these faith convictions mean that atheists cannot be moral people. Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as redemptive truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in and an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}} Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of themselvesreasoning provide a basis for morality. Judaism This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a mitzvah-oriented faith divine power. === The effects of atheism === It is contended that in broadly condemning "[[religion]]", atheism frequently focuses on [[Christianity]], which insists is seldom defined according to its source (the New Testament), and which they often include Hitler in, and which they blame for atrocities such as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]]. In addition, when confronted by the fact that onethe objectively baseless moral authority of atheism allowed atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] or [[Pol Pot]] to easily justify their atrocities (which seemed 's re­ligious convictions be translated into virtuous deeds'reasonable'' measures to them), they are observed seeking to disassociate the two. Without Harris attempts to do so by judging such men as "not especially rational", with this perhaps establishing Harris as the underpinnings authority of faithwhat is, there can be and then he proceeds to implicate religion for the evil of their regimes.<ref>Sam Harris, ''An Atheist Manifesto'' Dec 7, 2005</ref> In response it is seen that the authority for the religion at issue at issue (Christianity), is what transcendentally condemns them.<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.html</ref> (Jn. 10:10; Rm. 9:1-3ff; Gal. 6:10)  It is argued that while atheism did not directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because atheism provides no motivation or ra­tionale objective transcendent moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to live occur, while fostering "political religion" due to the tendency to worship mortal men in place of God.{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of religious observancethe biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref><ref>[http://www.greenwoodscholarscorner.com/catalogapologia/BJM%252fdeathtoll.aspxhtml Atheism's Body Count]</ref>}} == See also ==* [[Virtue]]* [[Ethics]]* [[Habit]]* [[Immorality]]* [[Moral relativism]]* [[Amoral]]* [[Essay:Immorality in America]]* [[Moral degeneration]]* [[Ten Commandments]]* [[Values]] == Bibliography ==* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11 May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24 December 2004 and 2 December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

<references/>{{reflist|2}}Cathrein, [[Category:Religion und Moral (Freiburg, 1900); Fox, Religion and ]][[Category:Christianity]][[Category:Catholicism]][[Category:Buddhism]][[Category:Hinduism]][[Category:Virtues]][[Category:Morality (New York, 1899); Devas, Key to the World's Progress (London, 1906); Idem, Studies of Family Life (London, 1886); Balfour, Foundations of Belief (London, 1895), Part I, i; Catholic Truth Society's Lectures on the History of Religions (London, 1910);Laws of Justice, Hammurabi; Moral Models from Mainstream Media. By Thomas E. Brewton; Buddhist ]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Philosophy]][[Category:Sexual Morality, Dr. C. George Boeree; Media]][[Category: Their Structure and Moral and Public Policy Import, by John M. Phelan; Imitating GodNon-the Basis of Jewish Morality, By Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik; Modern Jewish Morality, A Bibliographical Survey, Greenwood Press; Internet Modern History Sourcebook.violence]][[Category:Oaths]]