Are Christian Morals Superior?

[Firebird]

Oh boy, more discussions on morality! Yippeee! I'll dust off my previous arguments just so I'm not left behind:
Yes morals and morality is a human-created concept. It's not "natural". Neither is one species dominating a planet and prospering as a whole as much as we do. The point of establishing a system of ethics and morality is precisely to go against the natural order of the universe, which is dangerous and entropic. If we're going to survive and prosper as a society and species, we need to be able to work together, rewarding those who help push us forward and punishing those that hurt us. That includes jailing rapists and murders, rewarding people who give charity, etc.
Finding where that line is between what's ethical/moral and what's not is really difficult and messy, and we're still struggling with that. It doesn't mean we should toss the whole concept out. Democracy is one of the most infuriating systems of government ever created, because people are constantly fighting over what's right and wrong. But that doesn't mean we should toss it out either; it's the best system for advancing ourselves as a society and species as well. Or at least I think so; I know ThinkAnarchy's going to disagree with me there, but I'd rather not start that whole argument up again too No derail!

[Sandra Craft]

Finding where that line is between what's ethical/moral and what's not is really difficult and messy, and we're still struggling with that.

Do you think there'll ever be a time at which we do not struggle with it?  I see the struggle as an inescapable part of the process, since perfection is impossible.

[Sweetdeath]

Finding where that line is between what's ethical/moral and what's not is really difficult and messy, and we're still struggling with that.

Do you think there'll ever be a time at which we do not struggle with it?  I see the struggle as an inescapable part of the process, since perfection is impossible.

Both society and 'morals' are going to be constantly struggling to find what's 'good' and ' bad' for human kind. i find it never ending.

[En_Route]

Christians think about consequences. Everyone does.

I disagree, this is the very point we are talking about.  If a Christian, or member of any other religion for that matter, is following the scripture, they don't think about consequences.  They don't have that responsibilty or luxury.

I'm not saying all atheists are more "moral", or "less bad" or "gooder" or whatever you want to call it.  I'm just say that in my experience, people that have to find thier own way rather then follow a laid out path do a better job of it.  I believe in the abilty of people to make good choices if they try to.

A Christian may subscribe to  fixed principles but these still have to be applied to the particular circumstances of their life. Your belief in people's ability to make good choices implies that there is an absolute morality out there that people will arrive at left to their own devices. So what is it a a d what is the basis for it? And of course your touching faith that people will all find their way to this  universal touchstone of truth if unencumbeted by religious dogma is itself as non- evidence based and inherently improbable as theism itself. It bears out my earlier comment that some atheists having rejected god just substitute another form of mystical mumbo- jumbo instead.

[En_Route]

Finding where that line is between what's ethical/moral and what's not is really difficult and messy, and we're still struggling with that.

Do you think there'll ever be a time at which we do not struggle with it?  I see the struggle as an inescapable part of the process, since perfection is impossible.

Both society and 'morals' are going to be constantly struggling to find what's 'good' and ' bad' for human kind. i find it never ending.

Defining what is good/ bad for the entirety of humanity in the long- term of course begs the question of what exactly is good or bad for it and how long is the long- run. Further, who says I should care about hypothetical future generations or even the current one? Why this obsession with morals and ethics?

[En_Route]

I wouldn't call that bad

Yes, but the person that gets bashed on the head might.

Not if you bashed him good and proper.

[Ali]

To the bolded: only if they're assholes.   

So okay Professor Smartypants, if the consequences of your actions are not a good place to begin to look for their "rightness" and wrongness", and since you presumably do not accept such a pat answer as "BecauseGodSaidSo", how do you judge whether an action is moral or not?   *Taps foot expectantly*

I don't. And with one bound he was free...

Don't what?  Don't determine whether actions are "right" or "wrong?"  I don't believe you.  I think trying to wade between right and wrong is an integral (and inescapable) part of the human experience.  Furthermore, why would you object to atheistic hubris if some part of you didn't think it was "wrong?" 

[En_Route]

To the bolded: only if they're assholes.   

So okay Professor Smartypants, if the consequences of your actions are not a good place to begin to look for their "rightness" and wrongness", and since you presumably do not accept such a pat answer as "BecauseGodSaidSo", how do you judge whether an action is moral or not?   *Taps foot expectantly*

I don't. And with one bound he was free...

Don't what?  Don't determine whether actions are "right" or "wrong?"  I don't believe you.  I think trying to wade between right and wrong is an integral (and inescapable) part of the human experience.  Furthermore, why would you object to atheistic hubris if some part of you didn't think it was "wrong?" 

I don't object to it. It's a fact of life. I have no plans to eliminate hubris from the face of the earth. And no, fundamentally, to me the very notions of right and wrong are fantasies. Choice is unavoidable in life but buying into some homebrewed , unscientific code of ethics is not.

[Firebird]

A Christian may subscribe to  fixed principles but these still have to be applied to the particular circumstances of their life. Your belief in people's ability to make good choices implies that there is an absolute morality out there that people will arrive at left to their own devices. So what is it a a d what is the basis for it? And of course your touching faith that people will all find their way to this  universal touchstone of truth if unencumbeted by religious dogma is itself as non- evidence based and inherently improbable as theism itself. It bears out my earlier comment that some atheists having rejected god just substitute another form of mystical mumbo- jumbo instead.

The basis of it is the need to work together as a society and species to prosper, as I said above. It has nothing to do with "mystical mumbo-jumbo". It's similar in some ways with why we come up with a body of laws to govern what's legal and not legal.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute:
Let's say you feelthe cup of coffee you just bought was overpriced. Would you throw that hot cup of coffee in the clerk's face? If not, why?

[Ali]

I don't object to it. It's a fact of life. I have no plans to eliminate hubris from the face of the earth. And no, fundamentally, to me the very notions of right and wrong are fantasies. Choice is unavoidable in life but buying into some homebrewed , unscientific code of ethics is not.

How do you make a choice if you don't look at the potential consequences of your choice and try to choose the "right" action, or have some guiding ideas about what might be right or wrong?  What guides your choices?

Also, of course ethics are unscientific and home brewed.  You can base some of your ethical opinions on the findings of statistical studies and what not, but at the end of the day, science is poorly suited to ethics.  It's just not what it's meant to do.  That's like getting mad at the subject of history because you can't find much about it in a Calculus text book.

[En_Route]

A Christian may subscribe to  fixed principles but these still have to be applied to the particular circumstances of their life. Your belief in people's ability to make good choices implies that there is an absolute morality out there that people will arrive at left to their own devices. So what is it a a d what is the basis for it? And of course your touching faith that people will all find their way to this  universal touchstone of truth if unencumbeted by religious dogma is itself as non- evidence based and inherently improbable as theism itself. It bears out my earlier comment that some atheists having rejected god just substitute another form of mystical mumbo- jumbo instead.

The basis of it is the need to work together as a society and species to prosper, as I said above. It has nothing to do with "mystical mumbo-jumbo". It's similar in some ways with why we come up with a body of laws to govern what's legal and not legal.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute:
Let's say you feelthe cup of coffee you just bought was overpriced. Would you throw that hot cup of coffee in the clerk's face? If not, why?

"The basis of it is the need to work together as a society and species to prosper". Apart from the fact that this formulation is so vague (eg what does "prosper" denote?) that it is impossible to translate meaningfully into a basis for making decisions, who said that I have to work for the long-term benefit of the species?
I wouldn't throw the coffee in the clerk's face because my purely personal philosophy is to demonstrate compassion and kindness to other people. That's part of my personal mission statement if you like. But I don't refrain because it is "wrong" in any objective sense. It's just not what I do and doesn't fit with how I have decided to lead my life and what works for me. If somebody else threw coffee in the clerk's face I wouldn't call it wrong. 

[En_Route]

I don't object to it. It's a fact of life. I have no plans to eliminate hubris from the face of the earth. And no, fundamentally, to me the very notions of right and wrong are fantasies. Choice is unavoidable in life but buying into some homebrewed , unscientific code of ethics is not.

How do you make a choice if you don't look at the potential consequences of your choice and try to choose the "right" action, or have some guiding ideas about what might be right or wrong?  What guides your choices?

Also, of course ethics are unscientific and home brewed.  You can base some of your ethical opinions on the findings of statistical studies and what not, but at the end of the day, science is poorly suited to ethics.  It's just not what it's meant to do.  That's like getting mad at the subject of history because you can't find much about it in a Calculus text book.

I do look at the potential consequences of my action (mostly), but only in order to try to see if they chime with my personal goals and aspirations. Right and wrong are reifications, attempts to establish some values or imperatives that are extraneous to the individual. 

[technolud]

Not if you bashed him good and proper.

If you are unwilling to define hitting someone in the head as "bad", on what basis do you justify your own "personal philosophy is to demonstrate compassion and kindness to other people"? 

If head bashing doesn't qualify as "bad", what does qualify as "kindness"?

[En_Route]

Not if you bashed him good and proper.

If you are unwilling to define hitting someone in the head as "bad", on what basis do you justify your own "personal philosophy is to demonstrate compassion and kindness to other people"? 

If head bashing doesn't qualify as "bad", what does qualify as "kindness"?

I don't justify it. Who have I got to justify it to?
Kindness I suppose involves trying to avoid causing distress to people, being pleasant to them, making them laugh,praising them where they deserve it. It is an attitude of mind not a rigid prescription. A general air of benevolence which I cultivate but no big deal if I have an off day.

[Stevil]

Both society and 'morals' are going to be constantly struggling to find what's 'good' and ' bad' for human kind. i find it never ending.

If people insist in having laws based on morality then this will be a never ending fight and in societies dominated by religion, the atheists lose.

If instead we put morality into the domain of personal choice and put the purpose of law as peaceful cohabitation then we solve the problem