is it more noble to arrive to try and arrive at your own moral or to blindly accept the dogmatic morals of the Abrahamic religions? How smart does someone have to be to arrive at their own moral system and defend it? are lawyers, engineers, mathematicians etc smart enough for this sort of endeavor?
Why arrive at any other moral system than that which is perfect (categorical imperatives)?
Idk it seems challenging but not impossible, plus arriving at your own moral system and successfully defending it would BTFO the age old talking point from abrahamics of "if there is no god how do you arrive at moral truths", I would respect someone that has put in the effort to arrive at a moral system without defaulting to "god said so" more than someone that blindly accepts moral systems without at first attempting to create their own
Have you read Kant's Religion Within the Bounds of Re𝘢son, anon? Its argument is that religion occupies an instance above practical ethics, that of hope, which gives solid ground to the arbitrariness of mere practical reason.
>blindly accept the dogmatic morals of the Abrahamic religions?
contemporary morality and Christian morality are one and the same because the guys who invented our systems of governance and enforced it were Christian and very smart so it is probably a better system than someone like you asking questions about whether you are capable of determining right or wrong for yourself can come up with
I think asking whether-or-not it's noble already defeats the attempt at self creation.
First you at least have to ask why either would be noble. What do you consider noble? Regardless, you asked a pretty bad question. We aren't stuck in a world where we only have those two choices, and you would be mistaken if you think Abrahamic religions are alone in being dogmatic.
>How smart does someone have to be to arrive at their own moral system and defend it?
Not smart at all. Blessed with wealth and comfort or languishing in poverty, ignorant people can be found across the board. You know the more ignorant a person is, the more certain they are that they're right.
>are lawyers, engineers, mathematicians etc smart enough for this sort of endeavor?
Their occupation is completely irrelevant here. These people work jobs which inherently limit their freedom of "mental movement". Not on a personal level, but you see what I mean. Lawyers are often actively lying, knowing they're lying, and doing anything they can to support lies. As people they can be free, but once they have a client all of their personal beliefs go out the window. Of course, there are a minority of lawyers who are very picky about the cases they sign on for. Nonetheless, their occupation is irrelevant.
Engineers less so, but both they and mathematicians are typically working very narrowly. Mathematical theories aren't subject to change; they are part of a body of laws which indubitably govern our universe. There may come a day in some Orwellian future where everyone agrees that 2+2 does not equal 4, but that doesn't change the truth: math is constant. This isn't a judgement either way on my part, but plenty of mathematicians came to the opposite conclusion; instead of viewing mathematics as something which alienates man from religious belief, they viewed it as something which reinforces man's connection "the divine". So again, their occupation is irrelevant.
True nobility is achieved through loyalty, so in most cases I would say blind allegiance would be better (Ex; Medieval Europe). Though I do think allegiance attained by experience is more romantic and in most cases requires more exertion (Constantine, Paul, the Apostles) , but those are all special cases.
wrong
>[..] everywhere ‘aristocrat’, ‘noble’, is the root idea out of which have necessarily developed ‘good’ in the sense of ‘with aristocratic soul’, ‘noble’ in the sense of ‘with a noble soul’, ‘with a privileged soul’ – a development which invariably runs parallel with that other evolution, in which ‘vulgar’, ‘plebeian’, ‘low’ are transformed finally into ‘bad’.
That's a job for philosophers, and the fact that it takes decades of thought to make such a system is why religion is necessary. What normal person cares what Peter Singer has to say?
>blindly accept the dogmatic morals of the Abrahamic religion
Your question has the false premise that you can't rationally come to believe in "abrahamic" morality and that doing so must rather be done "blindly". Not to mention the fact that morality is conceived differently in the abrahamic religions.
do you honestly think the average 5'7 brown muslim that was born into a nation with an average IQ of 85 is independently developing his moral system and it just so happens to coincide with the moral system of islam so he converts to islam?
I said "you", can't you read? This is also a faulty generalization and you're not even addressing my point.
I'm saying the average person DOES blindly accept the moral systems of Abrahamic religions
This is still a faulty generalization and you are still not addressing my point. You have not addressed the false premise of the question at all. Most people generally "blindly" accept a lot of things that are true.
I still FEEL, that its more honorable and courageous to step out of the comfort zone of defaulting to "god said so" and trying to develop your own moral system, its kind of like the brits and spaniards that stayed in england and spain because they were scared vs those that embarked for the new world
You are a midwit and cannot be reasoned with, you sound like a teenager quite frankly. You have not addressed anything mentioned in those replies and simply restate your point.
ad hominem
All REAL morality is fundamentally divine, and has a religious component, because there's no other way to breach the Is-Ought Problem. You can argue and rationalize and debate and discuss; hell, Kant spent his entire life doing so. But in the end you're still going to be stuck with the fat Scot's conundrum of why you should do, or not do, anything based on the state of things as they are. The only way to successfully cross the gap is "because God (or some other deity) says so".
If God isn't real you're fundamentally in Nietzsche's world, where yes, you make your own morality, but everyone else can make their own morality too, and so the world is effectively an anarchy.
For constructing a personal moral system, please read The Abolition of Man by Lewis. It's only 40 pages, but it's one of the best books of the 20th century.