?Utilitarianism?: Would a world where religious morality does not affect law making be better? (ethical, religion)

[startingfromscratchagain]

I was thinking about what our world would look like if the human race had not turned to religion however many years ago to try and explain the unknown. Specifically, I wonder how a world were the laws are in no way linked to the moral tenets of wrong doing within religion would look like. For instance, I very much doubt prostitution would be illegal given the primary opposition to it centers around the morality. Likewise, I'd imagine laws based around protecting people from their own stupidity would likewise be abolished. Seriously, one can only give money to that Nigerian expat claiming you're of royal lineage with money to redeem so many times before I start to think you deserved to lose your wealth. A world were the laws, infrastructure, and very formation of society were in no way linked to religion would truly be different? And yet, I wonder if it would be a better world. Mind you, within this theory, I am not proposing that religion never comes to pass, but that it simply, for reasons unknown, takes a backseat to scientific and 'no explanation positions'. Hence my question:

Would a world where religious morality does not affect law making be better?

[ylisa7]

You do not need religion to have morals.

[mordant]

I don't see it as a binary choice between religion and utilitarianism. There are many other possibilities.

As younglisa7 pointed out, you don't need religion to have morals. In fact I would say that everyone -- the religious and the irreligious -- in a given society and era share the same exact morality, the only kind that actually exists. That is the morality that is emergent, inherently, from societal interactions, based on empathy, social reciprocity, and a consensus about what is harmful or beneficial to sustaining the kind of civil society that most of its members wish to live in.

All that religion does, is to make an empty claim to have invented morality that's already there, and to be its protector and explainer. And to give it a faux "authority" that authoritarian types of personalities tend to be obsessed with conveying to morality in a vain attempt to make it both objective and immutable. And that in turn is used as a fulcrum of control over people.

The superior morality is the one that people choose to abide by in their long-term rational self interest, not the one they adhere to out of fear of punishment (temporal and otherwise) and greed for special favors (temporal and otherwise).

As for what the world would be like if we hadn't gone the religion route -- that is a place I choose not to go. It could be no other way than it is. Religion is something humanity has needed for most of its existence, to control fear of mortality and of the unknown. As the unknown has shrunk, and we have learned to process the fact of our own mortality, the need for gods has and will continue to shrink. Religious morality, being as it is just an overlay or add-on to ACTUAL morality, is a layer you can choose to dispense with, if you so desire.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by startingfromscratchagain

I was thinking about what our world would look like if the human race had not turned to religion however many years ago to try and explain the unknown. Specifically, I wonder how a world were the laws are in no way linked to the moral tenets of wrong doing within religion would look like. For instance, I very much doubt prostitution would be illegal given the primary opposition to it centers around the morality. Likewise, I'd imagine laws based around protecting people from their own stupidity would likewise be abolished. Seriously, one can only give money to that Nigerian expat claiming you're of royal lineage with money to redeem so many times before I start to think you deserved to lose your wealth. A world were the laws, infrastructure, and very formation of society were in no way linked to religion would truly be different? And yet, I wonder if it would be a better world. Mind you, within this theory, I am not proposing that religion never comes to pass, but that it simply, for reasons unknown, takes a backseat to scientific and 'no explanation positions'. Hence my question:

Would a world where religious morality does not affect law making be better?

It is very relative.

Morality within humanity has evolved optimally in accordance to various circumstances.
There are also many different sets and types of morality over time and space.

Humanity started with almost minimal morality where the Laws of the Jungle and Might prevails.

At present the majority [Christianity, Islam and others] are engaged with theological morality because the soteriological elements in these religions dominate all else. Therefore the theological morality came with the dominating soteriological drive and not that theists deliberately chose theological morality.

The present moral system is based on some pseudo-absolute standards from an illusory God. Actually these pseudo-absolute standards of theological moral were established by some fallible humans.
Because the current morality system is conditioned upon the dominating soteriological elements, the majority will be stuck with it unless we get rid of the soteriological elements.

To have "better" morality, I would put it against a perspective of a Moral and Ethical System.
To be efficient and progressive, I believe ethics [the dynamic part] must evolve against an absolute standard [Moral].

Thus to implement an Ethical/moral system that is better than the theological [religious one] humanity must first deal and wean off the dominating soteriological system, i.e. the respective theistic religion.

At present there are no effective alternatives that are available to replace the dominant soteriological theistic religions. Thus we are stuck with its inferior immutable moral system.

However I am optimistic humanity will evolve in the near future [given the exponential expansion of knowledge and technologies at the current rate] to wean off and replace theistic religions and spontaneously replace theological moral system with a dynamic and progressive ethical/moral system.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by startingfromscratchagain

I was thinking about what our world would look like if the human race had not turned to religion however many years ago to try and explain the unknown. Specifically, I wonder how a world were the laws are in no way linked to the moral tenets of wrong doing within religion would look like. For instance, I very much doubt prostitution would be illegal given the primary opposition to it centers around the morality. Likewise, I'd imagine laws based around protecting people from their own stupidity would likewise be abolished. Seriously, one can only give money to that Nigerian expat claiming you're of royal lineage with money to redeem so many times before I start to think you deserved to lose your wealth. A world were the laws, infrastructure, and very formation of society were in no way linked to religion would truly be different? And yet, I wonder if it would be a better world. Mind you, within this theory, I am not proposing that religion never comes to pass, but that it simply, for reasons unknown, takes a backseat to scientific and 'no explanation positions'. Hence my question:

Would a world where religious morality does not affect law making be better?

er, I think our morals create the religous morals, not the other way around. Nuts: in reality we don't create, the universe does. -hashtag- feedback loop

[charlygal]

Religion isn't the problem nor the enemy. The source of the morals is irrelevant. Would it be better if morals were derived from the dynamics of individual families or a geographic location?