Are Christian Morals Superior?

[Firebird]

Ecurb invoked this in a different thread stating that he thought homosexual sex was gross. So it raised a repulsive emotion within himself thus implying to him that it must have been "objectively and absolutely" wrong, thus immoral.
Does this seem flawed?

Of course, but it also goes the other way. I may think that hypothetical clerk was a total asshole and deserved to get coffee thrown in his face, but I would never do that, and think it's appropriate to outlaw that.
I think we're talking past one another here. I'm trying to figure out how your approach differs from what we already do for the most part in Western society and am not able to find any thus far. Perhaps if you pointed out an example of some rule/law that you feel should be removed based on your system it would help a bit.

[En_Route]

Ecurb invoked this in a different thread stating that he thought homosexual sex was gross. So it raised a repulsive emotion within himself thus implying to him that it must have been "objectively and absolutely" wrong, thus immoral.
Does this seem flawed?

Of course, but it also goes the other way. I may think that hypothetical clerk was a total asshole and deserved to get coffee thrown in his face, but I would never do that, and think it's appropriate to outlaw that.
I think we're talking past one another here. I'm trying to figure out how your approach differs from what we already do for the most part in Western society and am not able to find any thus far. Perhaps if you pointed out an example of some rule/law that you feel should be removed based on your system it would help a bit.

Although addressed to Stevil, let me try to elucidate my position. We agree that  we are in favour of a society that has rules which punish someone who throws coffee in the clerk' s face. It is unlikely given my temperament and healthy respect for the consequences I would commit such an act, but all things are possible. If I were to do so, I wouldn't think that I had done something wrong or immoral, because those terms seem to me to be void of meaning. I might consider it unwise for a whole variety of reasons, but that would be a purely pragmatic stance.

[Stevil]

Perhaps if you pointed out an example of some rule/law that you feel should be removed based on your system it would help a bit.

Laws against prostitution, polygamy, homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research etc would be very difficult to justify from an amoral perspective if your goal was to define law for a society to ensure peaceful cohabitation supporting people's survival requirements.

If your goal were to create a moral society, then all your government needs to do is to declare these things as immoral, then all of a sudden they have the grounds to make them illegal.

[Ali]

I think liquorice candy is utterly disgusting. Let's outlaw that, yes?

Seconded and passed.

[Ali]

It is about how you internally justify your decisions.

A "Moral" person presumably wants to be "Good" and thus attempts to make the "Right" choice by doing the "Right" thing.

An "Amoral" person wants to survive and thus attempts to make the choice that enhances the likelihood of that survival goal by doing things that either improve chances of survival or don't jeopordise chances of survival.

So two ways to justify one's own actions.

These also can be used as a preference for a type of society, meaning a desire to have laws defining/governing society. A "Moral" person wants laws against murder because murder is "wrong", an "Amoral" person wants laws against murder because murder jeopordises one's own chances of survival.

I have to admit that I find the whole concept of an "amoral" person about as creepy as theists who argue that if it weren't for god, they would be out raping and murdering and pillaging, and for the same reason.

The idea that an amoral person only objects to murder because murder threatens his/her existance seems like too much of an unknown quantity to me.  What if that person were to decide that they don't really care if they live or die.  Then murder would be just fine, since there are no standards for "right" or "wrong" besides that which you personally favor to up the chances for your own survival, or because that's how you personally choose to comport yourself? Personally I prefer a sociarty that says "Murder is wrong no matter what you personally feel about it." 

[Crow]

I have to admit that I find the whole concept of an "amoral" person about as creepy as theists who argue that if it weren't for god, they would be out raping and murdering and pillaging, and for the same reason.

The idea that an amoral person only objects to murder because murder threatens his/her existance seems like too much of an unknown quantity to me.  What if that person were to decide that they don't really care if they live or die.  Then murder would be just fine, since there are no standards for "right" or "wrong" besides that which you personally favor to up the chances for your own survival, or because that's how you personally choose to comport yourself? Personally I prefer a sociarty that says "Murder is wrong no matter what you personally feel about it." 

I have no problems with amorality as I see it can actually be more beneficial to society as it goes against the grain making those who identify as amoral think very hard about each action after all the view is to try and benefit, not only that but they will question the conventions of what is moral. If you think hard about it (not just gut reaction or surface thoughts) the most moral thing you can do is be selfish, I'm not talking about short term selfishness as in the long term that is always detrimental. For an amoral person murder would never be justified unless it came down to kill or be killed situation, there is one major component that people forget and that is humans are a pack animals that are dependent upon each other to prosper, therefore its not only beneficial that there are laws against murder for the amoral person to reduce the risk of being murdered themselves but also their fellow person. It is also important to be an active member of society if you self identify as an amoral as it reduces the witch hunt mentality against that person. Like Stevil said they both do the exact same thing but with different perspectives, nature isn't moral or immoral and its actions that are beneficial to society that help us thrive, it's these amoral actions that we do to prosper that we then apply to a code of laws to create morals and to try and influence those that are more likely to be immoral through selfish means of wanting a better society to live in.

[Stevil]

I have to admit that I find the whole concept of an "amoral" person about as creepy as theists who argue that if it weren't for god, they would be out raping and murdering and pillaging, and for the same reason.

Like Stevil said they both do the exact same thing but with different perspectives, nature isn't moral or immoral and its actions that are beneficial to society that help us thrive, it's these amoral actions that we do to prosper that we then apply to a code of laws to create morals and to try and influence those that are more likely to be immoral through selfish means of wanting a better society to live in.

It is just a philosophical explanation as to why we behave the way we behave. There are some internalised differences with regards to an inner voice or inner explanation but ultimately the result is almost the same.

The benefit, I feel is that we don't judge people, certainly not with regards to being immoral, we might judge a person as being dangerous to ourselves and/or (by extension) the society in which we co-exist. Thus if a person is considered by some to be "immoral", but this person and their actions does not impact us (or our society) in a harmful way then we don't care, won't judge that person and will be happy having society allow that person to continue to make their "immoral" choices, such as being gay.

BTW, I consider the entire existence to already be amoral, even you, I would consider as amoral. Because of course the cosmos doesn't come with a set of rights and wrongs.
I think that you (along with almost everyone else) have just built a layer of belief and a personal desire to be Good, and in this way you justify your own actions. But I think if we analyse it real hard, we find that the real basis is survival.

You might be amazed if you allow yourself to think about things from an amoral perspective:
If I commit murder, is this detrimental to me? (may be society will react forcefully against me to remove me as a threat, that could prove to be dangerous to myself)
If I steal, is this detrimental to me?
If I lie, is this detrimental to me? (People will stop trusting me, they won't want to do business with me, they won't want to be my friends)

An amoral perspective helps us separate out law from personal choice. If the implications are that society becomes dangerous then we need a law, if the impact is not on society but only on the self (e.g. if I lie, people wont want to be my friends) then we don't need a law.
Laws don't define what is right or wrong, they merely make society more functional, more safe. Mutually we desire the laws because we think a functional and safe society puts our lives less in danger.

[Ali]

You might be amazed if you allow yourself to think about things from an amoral perspective:
If I commit murder, is this detrimental to me? (may be society will react forcefully against me to remove me as a threat, that could prove to be dangerous to myself)
If I steal, is this detrimental to me?
If I lie, is this detrimental to me? (People will stop trusting me, they won't want to do business with me, they won't want to be my friends)

Here is the problem that I have with the whole "how is this detrimental to me?" perspective.  The whole basis then (as far as I can tell) is based on "what if I get caught?"  Otherwise, there is no reason why you shouldn't steal (or lie or cheat or murder) other than "this could be detrimental to me...if I get caught."  So in other words, if you could steal and be fairly assured that you wouldn't get caught, why not?  Ditto lying.  Ditto murder.  I place a high value on doing the right thing even when no one is looking, hell, especially when no one is looking.  Not because it benefits me or removes harm from my way, but simply because it's the right thing. 

Example:  I find a wallet full of cash.  No one knows I found it.  The owner has no way of tracing it to me.  If I'm going by pure "self interest" there is no reason why I shouldn't take the cash.  But I don't want to live in the kind of world where we all just take the cash because we can.  I want to live in a world where we return the wallet without stealing anything out of it, because we should.

[Stevil]

Here is the problem that I have with the whole "how is this detrimental to me?" perspective.  The whole basis then (as far as I can tell) is based on "what if I get caught?"  Otherwise, there is no reason why you shouldn't steal (or lie or cheat or murder) other than "this could be detrimental to me...if I get caught."

Absolutely correct, and throughout our lives we all make decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions, it is called personal responsibility.
We have no, well JC died on the cross for my sins, delegation

Another aspect is the sphere of influence and a type of karma expectation.
The way you behave, might be because you want others in society to behave that way (unwritten rules rather than law). How many times have you been upset or disappointed because someone else has behaved contrary to the way you have been behaving?

[En_Route]

You might be amazed if you allow yourself to think about things from an amoral perspective:
If I commit murder, is this detrimental to me? (may be society will react forcefully against me to remove me as a threat, that could prove to be dangerous to myself)
If I steal, is this detrimental to me?
If I lie, is this detrimental to me? (People will stop trusting me, they won't want to do business with me, they won't want to be my friends)

Here is the problem that I have with the whole "how is this detrimental to me?" perspective.  The whole basis then (as far as I can tell) is based on "what if I get caught?"  Otherwise, there is no reason why you shouldn't steal (or lie or cheat or murder) other than "this could be detrimental to me...if I get caught."  So in other words, if you could steal and be fairly assured that you wouldn't get caught, why not?  Ditto lying.  Ditto murder.  I place a high value on doing the right thing even when no one is looking, hell, especially when no one is looking.  Not because it benefits me or removes harm from my way, but simply because it's the right thing. 

Example:  I find a wallet full of cash.  No one knows I found it.  The owner has no way of tracing it to me.  If I'm going by pure "self interest" there is no reason why I shouldn't take the cash.  But I don't want to live in the kind of world where we all just take the cash because we can.  I want to live in a world where we return the wallet without stealing anything out of it, because we should.

I would actually do the same because that's the kind of person I want to be and indeed I think a society where people behave like that is a gentler and more pleasant place to be.  But I wouldn't say that a person who swiped the money had done anything wrong or immoral or that he/she "should" have acted otherwise. The issue always (for me) reduces to- Who says so? The problem with any system of objective morality or any morality that claims to be true is that it an abstraction which is claimed to exists outside the sphere of our everyday reality, and is thus as unverifiable and unevidenced as any god.

[Siz]

I think liquorice candy is utterly disgusting. Let's outlaw that, yes?

Seconded and passed.

Are you two fucking insane? I will hunt you down...

[Ali]

I think liquorice candy is utterly disgusting. Let's outlaw that, yes?

Seconded and passed.

Are you two fucking insane? I will hunt you down...

Someone actually likes licorice? Are you messing with us right now? Licorice is probably the most vile substance known to mankind....

[Firebird]

So, is it moral for Scissorlegs to punch Ali for trying to ban licorice? And if he does, is it moral for Ali to retaliate by kicking him in the...

Oh never mind

[Sandra Craft]

So, is it moral for Scissorlegs to punch Ali for trying to ban licorice? And if he does, is it moral for Ali to retaliate by kicking him in the...

Oh never mind

It may not be moral but it is necessary -- licorice is revolting.  I won't even cook with anise.

[Stevil]

It may not be moral but it is necessary -- licorice is revolting.  I won't even cook with anise.

Yummy licorice, anise, gotta love Ouzo too, yum yum.