Durkheim’s definition of religion (which also suits our purposes) presents religion as a social phenomenon.
“We have arrived, then, at the following definition: a religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and surrounded by prohibitions-beliefs and practices that unite its adherents in a single moral community called a church. The second element that takes its place in our definition is therefore no less essential than the first: demonstrating that the idea of religion is inseparable from the idea of a church suggests that religion must be something eminently collective.”
This suggests that morality is functionally more like an unwritten legal system of collective customs. Which is probably closer to how humans operate in practice. Probably aligns with VE in the sense that your perception of excellence is likely rooted in your cultural frame.
TBH that sort of sounds like a bottom-up DCT system... or a sort of blending of virtue with divine-command.
I vaguely recall a philosopher advancing another school of thought, which was literally morality as consensus itself... which I thought was really gross the first time I heard it, but there might be something to it
Bottom up DCT is probably how tribal religions develop in practice, so yeah.
When you have a prophet figure, maybe less so at least initially, but that is functionally what happens over time. “What did he mean when he said that? Well, we’ve decided…”
Aristotle’s system was pretty secular, but still rooted in cultural norms.
This is the best summary for the different moral theories, thank you very much for this and thanks for your effort
This could be used as a cheat sheet. So simple and clear.
Durkheim’s definition of religion (which also suits our purposes) presents religion as a social phenomenon.
“We have arrived, then, at the following definition: a religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and surrounded by prohibitions-beliefs and practices that unite its adherents in a single moral community called a church. The second element that takes its place in our definition is therefore no less essential than the first: demonstrating that the idea of religion is inseparable from the idea of a church suggests that religion must be something eminently collective.”
This suggests that morality is functionally more like an unwritten legal system of collective customs. Which is probably closer to how humans operate in practice. Probably aligns with VE in the sense that your perception of excellence is likely rooted in your cultural frame.
TBH that sort of sounds like a bottom-up DCT system... or a sort of blending of virtue with divine-command.
I vaguely recall a philosopher advancing another school of thought, which was literally morality as consensus itself... which I thought was really gross the first time I heard it, but there might be something to it
Bottom up DCT is probably how tribal religions develop in practice, so yeah.
When you have a prophet figure, maybe less so at least initially, but that is functionally what happens over time. “What did he mean when he said that? Well, we’ve decided…”
Aristotle’s system was pretty secular, but still rooted in cultural norms.