Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]

Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it.
[/quote]

Humanism = moral relativism[/quote]

From Wikipedia:

Secular humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Secular humanism contrasts with religious humanism, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.

It’s not moral relativism, moral relativism in its current “trendy” form is little more than the reason most liberals are laughed at (and rightfully so).[/quote]

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?

582

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]

Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it.
[/quote]

Humanism = moral relativism[/quote]

From Wikipedia:

Secular humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Secular humanism contrasts with religious humanism, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.

It’s not moral relativism, moral relativism in its current “trendy” form is little more than the reason most liberals are laughed at (and rightfully so).[/quote]

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?
[/quote]

I dislike when they compare bombing a suspected weapons facility (which turns out to be something else) to a terrorist act. The fact that intentions are largely ignored frustrates me greatly.

583

This is what I was basically thinking, but I wanna know what Sparky’s thinkin before I address his question.

584

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]

Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it.
[/quote]

Humanism = moral relativism[/quote]

From Wikipedia:

Secular humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Secular humanism contrasts with religious humanism, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.

It’s not moral relativism, moral relativism in its current “trendy” form is little more than the reason most liberals are laughed at (and rightfully so).[/quote]

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?
[/quote]

I dislike when they compare bombing a suspected weapons facility (which turns out to be something else) to a terrorist act. The fact that intentions are largely ignored frustrates me greatly.[/quote]

Ok, got it. Was just curious.

585

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, got it. Was just curious.[/quote]

Fair enough, curiosity is what drives us as a species.

586

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?
[/quote]

I dislike when they compare bombing a suspected weapons facility (which turns out to be something else) to a terrorist act. The fact that intentions are largely ignored frustrates me greatly.[/quote]

Shouldn’t the consequences of an act determin the morality of the act, and not the intentions?

587

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?
[/quote]

I dislike when they compare bombing a suspected weapons facility (which turns out to be something else) to a terrorist act. The fact that intentions are largely ignored frustrates me greatly.[/quote]

Shouldn’t the consequences of an act determin the morality of the act, and not the intentions?[/quote]

That doesn’t make much sense to me. Can you explain what you mean?

If my neighbor asks me to water his flowers and I forget and they die, it’s not the same as if I tie on my Doc Martens and gleefully trample his garden underfoot.

Is it?

588

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?
[/quote]

I dislike when they compare bombing a suspected weapons facility (which turns out to be something else) to a terrorist act. The fact that intentions are largely ignored frustrates me greatly.[/quote]Yeah because if a kid runs out in front of my car and I unavoidably hit him it’s the same as if I drove up in his yard aiming.

Shouldn’t the consequences of an act determin the morality of the act, and not the intentions?[/quote]

589

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?
[/quote]

I dislike when they compare bombing a suspected weapons facility (which turns out to be something else) to a terrorist act. The fact that intentions are largely ignored frustrates me greatly.[/quote]

Shouldn’t the consequences of an act determin the morality of the act, and not the intentions?[/quote]

That doesn’t make much sense to me. Can you explain what you mean?

If my neighbor asks me to water his flowers and I forget and they die, it’s not the same as if I tie on my Doc Martens and gleefully trample his garden underfoot.

Is it?
[/quote]

Yeah, I guess that’s a hit and a miss, lol.

I was thinking about bombing [civilian targets] an enemy into submission is immoral inspite of the outcome.

Bombing a civilian target instead of a weapons factory by mistake is regretable, but not immoral.

Is that better Tiribulus?

590

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Mak, you’re down on the relative morality of liberals?

What manifestations of ‘morality’ do you have in mind?
[/quote]

I dislike when they compare bombing a suspected weapons facility (which turns out to be something else) to a terrorist act. The fact that intentions are largely ignored frustrates me greatly.[/quote]

Shouldn’t the consequences of an act determin the morality of the act, and not the intentions?[/quote]

That doesn’t make much sense to me. Can you explain what you mean?

If my neighbor asks me to water his flowers and I forget and they die, it’s not the same as if I tie on my Doc Martens and gleefully trample his garden underfoot.

Is it?
[/quote]

Yeah, I guess that’s a hit and a miss, lol.

I was thinking about bombing [civilian targets] an enemy into submission is immoral inspite of the outcome.

Bombing a civilian target instead of a weapons factory by mistake is regretable, but not immoral.

Is that better Tiribulus?
[/quote]

Well, if you believe that your enemy is indeed your enemy, then I’d say that is immoral, but it is the inescapably less-immoral choice between two immoral situations.

If you don’t really believe that your enemy is your enemy and you are a corrupt government looking to consolidate power through fear and violence, then any deaths that occur as a result of your actions are pretty well equally immoral.

There are other situations we could come up with, but I think you can see that in pretty much every case you can think of, it is actually intention itself that determines the morality of the act.

That, or natural disasters are, like, Hitler, dude.

591

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Well, if you believe that your enemy is indeed your enemy, then I’d say that is immoral, but it is the inescapably less-immoral choice between two immoral situations.

If you don’t really believe that your enemy is your enemy and you are a corrupt government looking to consolidate power through fear and violence, then any deaths that occur as a result of your actions are pretty well equally immoral.

There are other situations we could come up with, but I think you can see that in pretty much every case you can think of, it is actually intention itself that determines the morality of the act.

That, or natural disasters are, like, Hitler, dude. [/quote]

If brought up in future discussion I’ll just deny this ever happened, lol.

However, if you give money to a homeless alcoholic man hoping he’ll buy his last bottle by drinking himself to death because you can’t stand homeless people, and the homeless alcoholic buys food instead because he hadn’t eaten in three days, is it still an immoral act?

592

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Well, if you believe that your enemy is indeed your enemy, then I’d say that is immoral, but it is the inescapably less-immoral choice between two immoral situations.

If you don’t really believe that your enemy is your enemy and you are a corrupt government looking to consolidate power through fear and violence, then any deaths that occur as a result of your actions are pretty well equally immoral.

There are other situations we could come up with, but I think you can see that in pretty much every case you can think of, it is actually intention itself that determines the morality of the act.

That, or natural disasters are, like, Hitler, dude. [/quote]

If brought up in future discussion I’ll just deny this ever happened, lol.

However, if you give money to a homeless alcoholic man hoping he’ll buy his last bottle by drinking himself to death because you can’t stand homeless people, and the homeless alcoholic buys food instead because he hadn’t eaten in three days, is it still an immoral act?
[/quote]

Hahah. Yes. So don’t go getting any ideas.

:wink:

593

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Well, if you believe that your enemy is indeed your enemy, then I’d say that is immoral, but it is the inescapably less-immoral choice between two immoral situations.

If you don’t really believe that your enemy is your enemy and you are a corrupt government looking to consolidate power through fear and violence, then any deaths that occur as a result of your actions are pretty well equally immoral.

There are other situations we could come up with, but I think you can see that in pretty much every case you can think of, it is actually intention itself that determines the morality of the act.

That, or natural disasters are, like, Hitler, dude. [/quote]

If brought up in future discussion I’ll just deny this ever happened, lol.

However, if you give money to a homeless alcoholic man hoping he’ll buy his last bottle by drinking himself to death because you can’t stand homeless people, and the homeless alcoholic buys food instead because he hadn’t eaten in three days, is it still an immoral act?
[/quote]

Hahah. Yes. So don’t go getting any ideas.

:wink:
[/quote]

So the determining factor if an act is moral is solely the intention of the person acting?

594

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Well, if you believe that your enemy is indeed your enemy, then I’d say that is immoral, but it is the inescapably less-immoral choice between two immoral situations.

If you don’t really believe that your enemy is your enemy and you are a corrupt government looking to consolidate power through fear and violence, then any deaths that occur as a result of your actions are pretty well equally immoral.

There are other situations we could come up with, but I think you can see that in pretty much every case you can think of, it is actually intention itself that determines the morality of the act.

That, or natural disasters are, like, Hitler, dude. [/quote]

If brought up in future discussion I’ll just deny this ever happened, lol.

However, if you give money to a homeless alcoholic man hoping he’ll buy his last bottle by drinking himself to death because you can’t stand homeless people, and the homeless alcoholic buys food instead because he hadn’t eaten in three days, is it still an immoral act?
[/quote]

Hahah. Yes. So don’t go getting any ideas.

:wink:
[/quote]

So the determining factor if an act is moral is solely the intention of the person acting?
[/quote]

No. Some acts are intrinsically evil.***

You’ll appreciate this example: The Aztecs. They’d built an enormous, thriving, powerful society, hundreds of thousands strong, who collectively accepted and even exalted living human sacrifice, dismemberment, and cannibalism.

No matter what they thought about the atrocious manner in which they conducted their civic and religious obligations, no matter if they felt obligated or exhilarated, they were the authors of one of the most evil, grandly immoral societies this world has ever seen.

Another one: child rape and/or murder. No matter what kind of screwed up mind-state the perpetrator happens to be in, intention or not, raping a 5 year old girl, ripping her body open in the process, and discarding her in a ditch is evil. Pure, simple, unadulterated Satanic evil.

I’m feeling all kinds of deja vu right now.

***At the risk of getting into this with you again, these acts are where we discover that morality either is absolute or it doesn’t exist at all. You’ll almost never find someone who will honestly argue that there are certain situations where raping a child is NOT am immoral act. It will always be immoral, and we all know it. No matter how many lives it saves, no matter how many people sanction it, it will still be evil. Nothing relative about it.

595

[quote]Cortes wrote:

***At the risk of getting into this with you again, these acts are where we discover that morality either is absolute or it doesn’t exist at all. You’ll almost never find someone who will honestly argue that there are certain situations where raping a child is NOT am immoral act. It will always be immoral, and we all know it. No matter how many lives it saves, no matter how many people sanction it, it will still be evil. Nothing relative about it. [/quote]

Not rape.

But I would argue there are several situations where murder and lying are not immoral. In fact I would go as far as saying the most moral thing you can do in some situations is murder and lie.

596

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

So the determining factor if an act is moral is solely the intention of the person acting?
[/quote]

No. Some acts are intrinsically evil.***

You’ll appreciate this example: The Aztecs. They’d built an enormous, thriving, powerful society, hundreds of thousands strong, who collectively accepted and even exalted living human sacrifice, dismemberment, and cannibalism.

No matter what they thought about the atrocious manner in which they conducted their civic and religious obligations, no matter if they felt obligated or exhilarated, they were the authors of one of the most evil, grandly immoral societies this world has ever seen.

Another one: child rape and/or murder. No matter what kind of screwed up mind-state the perpetrator happens to be in, intention or not, raping a 5 year old girl, ripping her body open in the process, and discarding her in a ditch is evil. Pure, simple, unadulterated Satanic evil.

I’m feeling all kinds of deja vu right now.

***At the risk of getting into this with you again, these acts are where we discover that morality either is absolute or it doesn’t exist at all. You’ll almost never find someone who will honestly argue that there are certain situations where raping a child is NOT am immoral act. It will always be immoral, and we all know it. No matter how many lives it saves, no matter how many people sanction it, it will still be evil. Nothing relative about it. [/quote]

In this case the question wasn’t leading us up to the point of absolute vs relative morality, I just wondered what your answer would be.

597

[quote]pat wrote:
It is analogous. If you really believe hitler was a christian, there’s nothing I can do about it. I mean, people still believe elvis is alive…
[/quote]

No, it’s not. Your analogy could only work under the assumption that your position is true. So either this is another blatant logical fallacy on your part, or it’s just a poor analogy. A Dog is not a human just because he eats human food for several reasons. 1, “Human” food and “dog” food aren’t always mutually exclusive. 2, the dog still has canine DNA. 3, the dog is visibly still a dog.

In Hitler’s case, we have someone explicitly who claims to be a Christian and several millions of people following him, all of whom see him as a Christian. Actually, there’s no record of Hitler actually killing anyone himself, which means all those millions who died in WW2 died at the hands of people who undeniably considered themselves and their leader Christian. I see no reason to think Hitler was anything but a Christian and you’ve done a damn good job of holding up a conversation about this topic without actually saying anything more complex than “nu-uh!”, but this point is ultimately moot.

If you really believe hitler wasn’t a christian, there’s nothing I can do about it. I mean, people still believe in bronze-age fairy-tales…

And I shook my head and face-palmed

[quote]
Now, do you have a question on the table, or an argument to make about something? [/quote]

Things like, God flooding the earth and killing nearly everything, fitting two of every animal on a boat, and basically anything that suspension of disbelief wouldn’t cover.

598

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Hmm… and about Christ’s sacrifice. Why was it necessary for Jesus to die in order for God to forgive us? he can do anything, yes? Does that not include unconditional forgiveness? [/quote]

But wait…You read the bible right??? Not. [/quote]

Because, as we all know, there is only one way to interpret the bible, which is verifiable simply by observing that every Christian is in complete agreement on what the bible teaches and the significance of each passage…

599

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

That’s because Hitler wasn’t a Christian. Why don’t you understand this? If you put a Kobe Bryant Jersey on, does that make you Kobe Bryant?
[/quote]

According to what you define as a “true” Christian, he wasn’t a Christian. Then again, according to Hitler, YOU wouldn’t be a true Christian.

[/quote]

Hitler would be wrong. If anyone was confused, we would just examine Christs teaching about not killing people and loving your neighbor. A Christian is one who follows Christ.[/quote]

Sure, but lots of people interpret the bible in several different ways.

Even if you don’t consider him a Christian, his followers did. Hitler used Christianity to achieve his goals. Would you agree that this makes an objective moral code a dangerous thing?[/quote]

Which does not make him a christian. Ijit.
[/quote]

Right, and a Scotsmen who rapes/murders is not a real Scot.

600

[quote]kamui wrote:
I can.

Jesus crucifixion was NOT a sacrifice. It was a martyr.
In a violent world, it was the inevitable conclusion (and thus, the fulfillment) of the new law of universal love.

Death is what happen, sooner or later, when you love a sword-bearing ennemy.

Jesus/God couldn’t ask YOU to do that without doing it Himself.
[/quote]

^ Take note of this, Pat. This is what a competent debater can come up with.

From what I understand, you aren’t actually a Christian, so I won’t expect a counter-argument, but I’ll make my rebuttal anyway in case any Christian wants to take it from here.

Law of universal love? If loving your enemy becomes a coercive law, then it can hardly be called love. Love is great, but burning in Hell for all eternity for not loving enough doesn’t sound like the kind of ultimatum an all-loving being would come up with.

Furthermore, God is timeless and all-powerful, yes? It’s easy for him to become a martyr, he’s not actually giving up anything! If I was timeless, omnipotent and omniscient, then perhaps God’s demand would be reasonable, but this is not the case.

Finally, why is the entrance fee to Heaven simply to believe in Jesus’ “martyring”? Given what you said, would the price not simply be to love unconditionally, even if the result is death? Which brings up another question, would god exclude an otherwise loving man from heaven simply for not being Christian?