[quote]Cortes wrote:
It is SO WEIRD how all of those different religions, from completely different times, and cultures, and areas of the earth, came up with the EXACT same concept! You’d think, like, there was this absolute law that already existed and that each society discovered that law for itself. Or, like, something.
[/quote]
Of course. They all originate from the same Source. God-inspired, or enlightened people, as the founders of this (single) message of kindness spread it to their own cultures. The enlightened ones are those who manage to get their own mind/desires out of the way for a long enough time to see this ‘absolute law that already existed’ - the Reality, God, their true Self, whatever you wish to call it. It is the political leaders that then, over time, mutate, omit and distort the message for their own gain. I also have my doubts that the pope is an enlightened master.
Orion, ‘God’ may be different from the concept you have of Him in your mind - hence why I hesitate to use that word.
By the way, nice DELTS, Cortes.[/quote]
Thanks, yusef. You know who gave me those delts? God!
Prove God exists, thus proving absolute morality exists.
/thread[/quote]
There is a lot more evidence that an absolute morality, and thus a God who created that morality, exists than there is that we just all happened to come to the same conclusion by happy accident.
[quote]chris666 wrote:
I guess you guys realize that:
a. The morality of followers of the SAME religion differs radically:
Example: Some christians find it ok to kill people working in abortion clinics, most do not.
b. The morality of followers of the same religion CHANGES with time:
Example: The pope will no longer support execution of atheists or heretics like in the middle ages.
So how is religion good at giving an answer to the question which morality is superior to another?
Morality will always be heavily influenced by social norms which do not have much to do with religion itself.
From a practical point of view I think whether a person ACTS like what the majority of people at that time will feel is morally sound has nothing do to whether he or she is religous or not or which religion he or she subscribes to.
[/quote]
Your argument is full of holes.
Find me one major religion that agrees with the murderers of people working at abortion clinics. Hint: there isn’t one. We all find murder (not necessarily killing, as will be discussed) morally reprehensible. I cannot think of a single society that saw the act of murder as a virtue.
You are taking something out of context and comparing it to present society, and then claiming that the actual morals have changed. Not true. We kill people today whom we feel to be a threat to the well-being of our society. I’m not asserting whether this is right or wrong, but to your average 14th century individual, a witch was someone who was very real, and had the power to inflict sickness and death upon you and your family, destroy crops, and wreak all sorts of havok. Doesn’t make it right that these innocent people were killed, but to state that the actual morality has changed it a pretty big stretch.
Which animal is “right”? Which is “wrong”?
[/quote]
A person cannot make a wrong decision (nor could an animal).
A decision is good by default because it is the right decision. It is right because there is frankly no other decision that could be made. Their whole life pointed to making that decision.
Genetics, Childhood conditioning, Schooling, Adult experience – all are taken into account when making a decision. We are not whimsical creatures but ones of reason. And reasonable creatures use their vast knowledge bank (their past) on how to act in the present.
The case for pedophilia:
Most likely, they have deficiencies in the brain (either caused by conditioning or genetics). This could be low prefrontal cortex activity (same as those with ADD) which cause ones to be impulsive and unable to micromanage themselves. Combine this with the right environment (a environment which supports this behavior and even an environment that is downright against it – in this case, a person with Obsessive Defiant Disorder would engage in behavior that was deemed untouchable) and all our “evil” fetishes and desires may be released. It can get quite complex but my point is there is no magic to how we act. We are all following programming. We all think we are living the right life…
That being said, it is the mind that divides. Ie. Good and Evil, right and wrong, etc.
Go beyond the mind , through awareness and mediation, and you will be able to see “what is”.
And once you are seeing “what is” , you cannot engage in behavior caused by desire. Behavior which is caused by fear.
Which animal is “right”? Which is “wrong”?
[/quote]
A person cannot make a wrong decision (nor could an animal).
A decision is good by default because it is the right decision. It is right because there is frankly no other decision that could be made. Their whole life pointed to making that decision.
Genetics, Childhood conditioning, Schooling, Adult experience – all are taken into account when making a decision. We are not whimsical creatures but ones of reason. And reasonable creatures use their vast knowledge bank (their past) on how to act in the present.
The case for pedophilia:
Most likely, they have deficiencies in the brain (either caused by conditioning or genetics). This could be low prefrontal cortex activity (same as those with ADD) which cause ones to be impulsive and unable to micromanage themselves. Combine this with the right environment (a environment which supports this behavior and even an environment that is downright against it – in this case, a person with Obsessive Defiant Disorder would engage in behavior that was deemed untouchable) and all our “evil” fetishes and desires may be released. It can get quite complex but my point is there is no magic to how we act. We are all following programming. We all think we are living the right life…
That being said, it is the mind that divides. Ie. Good and Evil, right and wrong, etc.
Go beyond the mind , through awareness and mediation, and you will be able to see “what is”.
And once you are seeing “what is” , you cannot engage in behavior caused by desire. Behavior which is caused by fear. [/quote]
…chaps, I think you’ll find that morality is a subjective and human construct. There is no such thing as an “absolute” morality; even people who profess to share the same beliefs will often differ on at least one matter of morality. Hell, from what I recall of my primary school days having to read The Bible there are some views in there that would be morally questionable nowadays.
As for justifying why your morality is right and another’s is wrong, this is down to either arrogance or the fact that your idea of morality is in line with what the society in which you’re living deems to be moral and nothing more. From the day we are born we are exposed to a complex and dynamic system of what is considered “right” and “wrong”, a system which has evolved and changed signifcantly since the dawn of humanity, a system that is essential for the creation of successful society. Even if you disagree with other’s morals, every society has a system of morality that is, to a large extent, shared by the majority of its citizens. Since the introduction ideas such as “political correctness” and “human rights” our morals have changed. What would be accepted at a societal level just 20 years ago in the UK would be unacceptable now. Just look at changing attitudes towards racism and slavery: 150 years ago you could own another human being and society would - as a whole - say, “yeah, that’s cool”, whereas now even the act of observing the colour of another’s skin is deemed racist and, by extension, wrong.
The wolf is by our morality evil (though some humans who hold a different morality would say, “well played, wolf,”), but that doesn’t make it evil because “good” and “evil” are not absolute; what is considered “good” and “evil” changes with the general morality of a particular society, and, as I’ve said, that morality isn’t necessarily shared 100% by all of its constituents. My girlfriend did a dissertation on Nazi belief system which explained that there was no shared definition of what their tenants were and that there wasn’t even a firm consensus between high ranking members, let alone amongst the members as a whole. I feel that this is likely the same for any belief system (it just so happens that she wrote the essay a part of her module on German… something. History, I guess…).
I find it strange that someone could be of the opinion that only a diety could create the concept of morality when what we call morality is just a vaguely shared set of ideals that contribute to the functioning of society. You can romanticise it and idealise it as much as you wish, but that doesn’t change the fact that society creates morality and morality changes as society does. In my opinion. Guess I shouldn’t really have stated that it is a fact back there…
If there is an absolute morality and it has been handed down from God in the form of the teachings in The Bible, then does that mean that all that is presented in The Bibe is moral and should be applied today?
There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.
There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:
Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?
Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.[/quote]
…nevertheless, all societies need a set of moral guidelines to function. If you claim this is not the case, i doubt your sanity. So, how would you go about setting guidelines in order to have a society functioning succesfully, and how do you justify those guidelines?
[/quote]
I am a natural rights libertarian so I do not think it is a mystery how I would set guidelines.
I also believe that to claim that there are some rights that are inherent due to mans nature is a useful and at least a defendable position, so if someone wants to believe that God put it there I do not care.
That is much better than claiming that acts are “wrong” because “society”, “the law” or whatever other collectivits phantom you care to summon.
Now I do know that natural rights principles need to put into the form of laws too, but these acts of legislation do in now way, shape or form make the government or the state the source or the final arbiter on what is “right”.
[quote]The Goose. wrote:
I don’t think there is a moral foundation. That would be an absolute approach, which obviously just doesn’t work.
Morals are always relative, and each situation needs to be judged as an individual event, not against an absolute “moral foundation”.
For example, If I say “killing is always wrong”. This is an absolute statement. However, what if someone said to my friend “If you don’t kill The Goose, I will kill a thousand other people.” In this situation would it still be wrong for my friend to kill me?
Obviously, its tough to answer that question, but it makes clear why you can’t really have an absolute “moral foundation”.[/quote]
You are running into the same problems like all consequentialist ethics.
Just a few:
If it can be “right” to kill you to save others, is not preserving human life a moral absolute for you?
What if it is not that clear cut, and killing you just might save those other people?
What if you would have gone on and benefitted hundreds of thousands of other people?
You are making yourself vulnerable to all sorts of moral blackmail, because all I have to do now is create a situation where I convincingly threathen even worse consequences if you do not committ atrocities.
There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.
There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:
Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?
Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.[/quote]
…nevertheless, all societies need a set of moral guidelines to function. If you claim this is not the case, i doubt your sanity. So, how would you go about setting guidelines in order to have a society functioning succesfully, and how do you justify those guidelines?
[/quote]
I am a natural rights libertarian so I do not think it is a mystery how I would set guidelines.
I also believe that to claim that there are some rights that are inherent due to mans nature is a useful and at least a defendable position, so if someone wants to believe that God put it there I do not care.
That is much better than claiming that acts are “wrong” because “society”, “the law” or whatever other collectivits phantom you care to summon.
Now I do know that natural rights principles need to put into the form of laws too, but these acts of legislation do in now way, shape or form make the government or the state the source or the final arbiter on what is “right”.
[/quote]
…i have no idea what a natural rights libertarian is, so please enlighten me…
[quote]chris666 wrote:
I guess you guys realize that:
a. The morality of followers of the SAME religion differs radically:
Example: Some christians find it ok to kill people working in abortion clinics, most do not.
b. The morality of followers of the same religion CHANGES with time:
Example: The pope will no longer support execution of atheists or heretics like in the middle ages.
So how is religion good at giving an answer to the question which morality is superior to another?
Morality will always be heavily influenced by social norms which do not have much to do with religion itself.
From a practical point of view I think whether a person ACTS like what the majority of people at that time will feel is morally sound has nothing do to whether he or she is religous or not or which religion he or she subscribes to.
[/quote]
Your argument is full of holes.
Find me one major religion that agrees with the murderers of people working at abortion clinics. Hint: there isn’t one. We all find murder (not necessarily killing, as will be discussed) morally reprehensible. I cannot think of a single society that saw the act of murder as a virtue.
[/quote]
I grant you that the people in charge of the christian religions have become more sane over the centuries. But if you take islam, killing of a journalist for making a caricature of allah is pretty cool with a lot of imams.
I was deliberately not talking about witches but about people with different (non-society-threatening) beliefs (e.g. protestant christians slaughtered by roman catholic christians and vice versa).
You have not brought up anything that would support a view that morality motivated by religion is better founded, more absolute than a morality chosen by atheists on more utilitarian grounds.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I believe child rape to be wrong because there exists an absolute morality, and that absolute morality is derived from God. It exists because it is the essence of His nature. Now, by following that morality it will just so turn out that it will result in the greatest benefit for the maximum amount of people, as well as true happiness (as opposed to a fleeting satisfaction of desires) for its adherents. This is because, much like the laws of thermodynamics and physics, it is a law. The only difference between this law and those is that we, as humans, are free to break the Moral (or Natural, if you prefer) Law. But we do so at our own peril. It is from this law, and our discovery, not creation, of it, that we have come to such conclusions as “raping a child is bad,” or “greed and selfishness are never virtues.” Can you imagine a society in which turning away from a woman being mugged (ensuring your survival and following your instincts), would be seen as any kind of virtuous act?
Now, if there is no God, there is no law, and the atheistic apologist is then challenged with the task of justifying his beliefs based upon experience or reason. Problem is, there is no foundation now, none, to compare or justify why one act is now “good” while another one is “evil.” And so, as orion correctly states, you have a lot of people repulsed with an act who label it “wrong” because of nothing more than a gut reaction based upon their prior experience and biases. This opens the door for all sorts of abuse, and what you end up with is a formula for someone justifying any sort of morality he pleases.
I’m happy to continue this argument, but I want to see a stronger justification for why an act is “not good” than what has been presented so far. Feelings, laws, and examples based upon evolution have thus far failed to convince me.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure I gave my reason for child rape being frowned upon.
[quote]chris666 wrote:
I guess you guys realize that:
a. The morality of followers of the SAME religion differs radically:
Example: Some christians find it ok to kill people working in abortion clinics, most do not.
b. The morality of followers of the same religion CHANGES with time:
Example: The pope will no longer support execution of atheists or heretics like in the middle ages.
So how is religion good at giving an answer to the question which morality is superior to another?
Morality will always be heavily influenced by social norms which do not have much to do with religion itself.
From a practical point of view I think whether a person ACTS like what the majority of people at that time will feel is morally sound has nothing do to whether he or she is religous or not or which religion he or she subscribes to.
[/quote]
Your argument is full of holes.
Find me one major religion that agrees with the murderers of people working at abortion clinics. Hint: there isn’t one. We all find murder (not necessarily killing, as will be discussed) morally reprehensible. I cannot think of a single society that saw the act of murder as a virtue.
[/quote]
I grant you that the people in charge of the christian religions have become more sane over the centuries. But if you take islam, killing of a journalist for making a caricature of allah is pretty cool with a lot of imams.
I was deliberately not talking about witches but about people with different (non-society-threatening) beliefs (e.g. protestant christians slaughtered by roman catholic christians and vice versa).
You have not brought up anything that would support a view that morality motivated by religion is better founded, more absolute than a morality chosen by atheists on more utilitarian grounds.[/quote]
Okay, I’ll bite. Again, the inquisitors of the day were working from their beliefs. I’m sure there were some who truly believed that what they were doing was better for that person than the alternative, and because of that it was not a murder but an execution. I think they were terribly misguided, just as I think the German people in the late 30’s and early 40’s were terribly misguided, and that many Islamists are terribly misguided.
However, if what you say is true, and morals are subject to the whims of mob and time, culture and location, then you cannot disagree with these actions, either, because they are just another cultures “morals,” no more right or wrong than your own. My guess is that you don’t believe this, though, do you?
Also, I never posited that the absolute morality I am speaking of is motivated by religion. The purpose of a religion is to know and form a relationship with God. The laws I am speaking of existed well before any religion ever existed.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
The laws I am speaking of existed well before any religion ever existed.
[/quote]
You are being self-contradictory.
How do you reconcile the above statement with: “I believe child rape to be wrong because there exists an absolute morality, and that absolute morality is derived from God.”
Secondly, you’re argument is full of holes too. It essentially boils down to “because God says its wrong”. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong - something that many Christians believe in, described as an “abomination”. In the same chapter, it describes eating shrimp as an “abomination”, and wearing cotton and linen at the same time as an “abomination” too.
Surely, then, you must subscribe to these beliefs, considering that your “justification” (which I do not believe to be a justification at all) is that God says so, remembering that the Bible is supposed to be God’s word.
