Over the weekend, I was talking with my mom, who is a very strong Christian. We were talking about morals. I tried to tell her that I don't need god to be moral and I don't need Christianity. I know not to cheat on my husband. Why? Because I love him and I don't want to hurt him. Why don't I murder the next person who cuts me off in traffic? Because I would go to prison and more importantly, murder is wrong because I would be harming another human being. But, she said that I believe those things because I was raised with Christian morals. If I hadn't been raised with those morals, then who knows what I would think, she said.
She also basically argued that Christianity has brought about a great moral system in our world. Cultures who embrace Christianity....at least at some time in the past...are reaping the benefits of living by Christian morals. She points to cultures who never embraced Christianity, such as tribes in Africa and tribes in New Guinea, who have horrible tribal practices that are inhumane and cruel. She says they were never introduced to Christian morals and therefore, they are very backwards. She talked about how when the tribes in New Guinea were introduced to Christianity, they learned to forgive one another, instead of seeking revenge (usually murder), and these tribes were civilized and learned to live in peace with one another.
Europe, Scandinavia, America, etc. were all (at one time or another) heavily influenced by Christianity and so they are civilized societies operating under a moral code that helps them thrive. She said that America was founded by (mainly) Chrisitians. So, her point was that, Christian morals have changed the cultures in which most people have embraced Christianity.
When I say Christian morals, I'm talking about forgiveness, patience, kindness, self-control, selfless giving, charity, caring for orphans and widows, etc. If a Christian is living a good life, then they usually display these kinds of attributes...not always, but usually....at least in my experience. I have to admit that I didn't know how to respond. She is right that I am heavily influenced by Christian morality and I want to follow that moral code.
So, I was wondering out of those here who operate by a moral code that is good (what most consider good...not murdering, not committing adultery, giving to the poor, etc..), can you honestly say that there has been no Christian influence on you? No parent, Grandparent, Great Grandparent, friend, etc who influenced you or had at least in indirect influence?
In addition, I'm just curious if there are cultures who have a strong moral code that allows them to thrive as a society in which that society was not affected by Christianity? And, just interested in everyone's thoughts in general.
Note: If you bring up the Inquisition and the Crusades, please address the objection that those movements were politically motivated. Many Christians say that god had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Asherah on April 23, 2012, 03:36:49 AM
When I say Christian morals, I'm talking about forgiveness, patience, kindness, self-control, selfless giving, charity, caring for orphans and widows, etc.
Catholics are Christians.
Catholics believe it is immoral to:
- have IVF treatment
- live as a happily married gay couple
- for a happily married gay couple to adopt orphan children
- teach sex education
- use contraceptives
- advance science through stem cell research
- teach religious beliefs other that Catholicism
- divorce
Catholics believe women should not be priests, men within the church should not report to women.
Quote from: Asherah on April 23, 2012, 03:36:49 AM
When I say Christian morals, I'm talking about forgiveness, patience, kindness, self-control, selfless giving, charity, caring for orphans and widows, etc. If a Christian is living a good life, then they usually display these kinds of attributes...not always, but usually....at least in my experience. I have to admit that I didn't know how to respond. She is right that I am heavily influenced by Christian morality and I want to follow that moral code.
I don't see why Christians have to have a monopoly on those, they're not specific to that religion. Other religions also stress that those are positive things.
QuoteSo, I was wondering out of those here who operate by a moral code that is good (what most consider good...not murdering, not committing adultery, giving to the poor, etc..), can you honestly say that there has been no Christian influence on you? No parent, Grandparent, Great Grandparent, friend, etc who influenced you or had at least in indirect influence?
Sure, culture and Christinaity in the case of the Weestern world are really intertwined. Society and evolving culture also have an influence on religions and they in turn influence societies.
QuoteIn addition, I'm just curious if there are cultures who have a strong moral code that allows them to thrive as a society in which that society was not affected by Christianity? And, just interested in everyone's thoughts in general.
Smaller tribal groups linked by kinship (about 150-ish) can thrive in without the Big Brotherish side of religious morality. Nowadays the healthiest societies are among the most secular, and not the religious (which tend to be worse).
The main point is that Christianity does not have a monopoly on commonly percieved (and that provide a cultural/evolutionary advantage) "good" morals such as don't kill, don't steal, don't harm etc...
Quote from: Asherah on April 23, 2012, 03:36:49 AM
Note: If you bring up the Inquisition and the Crusades, please address the objection that those movements were politically motivated. Many Christians say that god had nothing to do with it.
I'd agree god had nothing to do with it but Christianity did. Thinking you do something for a higher power helps you overcome your squeamishness. Gays, sorry we're vilifying you, but it's in the rules. Teenage rape victim, you'll have to keep it, life is sacred. We're not enslaving Africans the way we used to but it's been decreed god doesn't like condoms and parents die, too many children are born. That's OK though because the church thrives when people suffer.
Christians may think their book is good, I don't think it's good enough.
Quote from: Stevil on April 23, 2012, 04:40:56 AM
Quote from: Asherah on April 23, 2012, 03:36:49 AM
When I say Christian morals, I'm talking about forgiveness, patience, kindness, self-control, selfless giving, charity, caring for orphans and widows, etc.
Catholics are Christians.
Catholics believe it is immoral to:
- have IVF treatment
- live as a happily married gay couple
- for a happily married gay couple to adopt orphan children
- teach sex education
- use contraceptives
- advance science through stem cell research
- teach religious beliefs other that Catholicism
- divorce
Catholics believe women should not be priests, men within the church should not report to women.
Also, aren't there Christians in many African countries, preventing the population from using condoms to help slow down the spread of Aids in that region?
Assuming that is correct, I wouldn't consider it to be the moral high ground here.
The issue is that God did not create the Bible nor write a single word in it. Any moral guidance that was in the Bible was created by the people/men who wrote it. Thus the moral guidance in the Bible was simply a codification and recording of what people felt was good/moral behaviour at the time.
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.
While there are exceptions to what you and I would call acceptable behaviour there are many many tribes that behave in ways infinitely better than we do. An example would have been Tahiti when Columbus reached it. A veritable Eden destroyed by Christian teaching.
I was raised in a Christian environment. My Children were not. They are all fine examples of human beings. No superstition required. It appears that what is good survives in humans, or not, depending on the social norms they experience as a child.
Your Mum does have a point in that you were lucky enough to have been brought up in an environment that has produced a thoughtful person who respects others and does no harm. It just goes to show that the people who wrote the Bible did get some good stuff in and that the good has remained in many Christian teachings while the bad has mostly been discarded by most Christians.
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AMAn example would have been Tahiti when Columbus reached it. A veritable Eden destroyed by Christian teaching.
"Caught between the twisted stars the plotted lines the faulty map
that brought Columbus to New York"
I like that song, it doesn't matter that CC never went to New York.
I suppose Barry Columbus may have gone to Tahiti and caused a ruckus?
I think I'm going to come off second best if people start requiring factual correctness from my posts, did you mean Cuba or Cook?
China and Japan are cool countries, and they are not Christian.
"Christian" morals are only superior when observed through christian glasses, just as "muslim" morals are superior to a muslim and my morals are by far superior to me.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on April 23, 2012, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AMAn example would have been Tahiti when Columbus reached it. A veritable Eden destroyed by Christian teaching.
"Caught between the twisted stars the plotted lines the faulty map
that brought Columbus to New York"
I like that song, it doesn't matter that CC never went to New York.
I suppose Barry Columbus may have gone to Tahiti and caused a ruckus?
I think I'm going to come off second best if people start requiring factual correctness from my posts, did you mean Cuba or Cook?
Bugger! Cook Doh!
Quote from: Asmodean on April 23, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
China and Japan are cool countries, and they are not Christian.
"Christian" morals are only superior when observed through christian glasses, just as "muslim" morals are superior to a muslim and my morals are by far superior to me.
This is how i feel. That a christian perspective is only a personal one; just like the typical christian's view of god only reflects their own personal beliefs.
I don't understand why they dont get that a Jewish person, Muslim , etc feels their own beliefs are correct, which is why no country should ever be forced to accept them.
I'm really sick of those brainwashed handing me meaningless pamphlets. It's annoying, nd insulting.
They dont know a thing about my life, but they want me to accept their beliefs? Piss off.
I'm sorry, but soliciting religion is fucking irritating and should be illegal. If your god is so great, you should let people be, and live your own damn lives without trying to convert everyone. Do it in private for fuck's sake.
Bringing up my annoying Catholic coworker Jessica. Her husband is muslim. For some reason, she felt the need to rant at me during lunch, saying "my husband really wants me to convert to Islam. He says 'i just want you to be able to enter paradise, honey...' "
So according to her husband, muslim.is the only true religion. She feels Catholics are right.
They are both dellussional idiots.
I was raised in a pretty Christian-free environment, and don't consider those values you speak of to be inherently Christian. Like others have said, plenty of other philosophies and religions have promoted the same values. Plus your mum is neglecting to mention certain less pleasant but still very inherent Christian values such as intolerance towards other faiths and non-believers. Europe (and subsequently the west) only became Christian because they outlawed the worship of any other god under the death sentence.
It's worth remembering that Europe wasn't the pleasant peace-loving tolerant continent it is today when Christianity ruled supreme, that was a time of intolerance, ignorance, witch hunts, pogroms and the afore mentioned inquisitions and crusades. I would argue Europe (and the west in general) has become the civilised advanced peaceful societies they are today in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Christianity ruled over 1300 of the most barbarous years in Europe's history. We began along our current path with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, both of which challenged and eroded the power of the Church and the Bible. We can trace important core values of western society such as democracy, tolerance, reason, rationality and science back to ancient Greece and Rome rather than to Christianity.
I don't think anyone has mentioned the morality of circumcision on infant boys yet. The religions without morals cut off the clitoris, the religions with morals slice the foreskin and peel it back.
How can this practice be considered morally superior in todays society?
Real christian morals are horrible...the watered down kind that liberal christians follow are okay but only because they were influence by cultural changes.
Any moral system that calls for doing good because if you don't you will be hurt isn't superior.
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!
Also, indentured servitude is not the only form of slavery okayed by god in the bible. It says it is also okay to take the virgin women from conquered tribes as wives and that's like sex slavery. The general position of women in many parts of the bible is subservient to men and imo another form of slavery.
Quote from: Whitney on April 24, 2012, 03:18:04 AM
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!
Also, indentured servitude is not the only form of slavery okayed by god in the bible. It says it is also okay to take the virgin women from conquered tribes as wives and that's like sex slavery. The general position of women in many parts of the bible is subservient to men and imo another form of slavery.
Even if it can't be equated to slavery; it's still clearly rape. The argument is valid regardless of the slavery aspect in my opinion.
Added: Never mind, I think you were referring to women simply being subservient to men in the bible as the questionable slavery example. Not sure if I agree with that, though I think the subservient idea is clearly wrong, from the religious view.
Rape...that's another thing that's not immoral according to christianity. It's only immoral if a man rape someone he doesn't intend to keep as a wife or that is already married. Then it is left up to the woman to prove that she was raped by having to present witnesses who can say that she did indeed cry out for help loud enough. And once raped the woman is figuratively and literally screwed either way since it's either forced marriage or death.
^
I bet if you bring this up to your mum, she'll just stick her fingers in her ears.
Some people just dont care to hear the truth, because they love feeling special or better than everyone else.
There's no democracy that I know of in the bible, plenty of kings. All the "Lord" this lord that annoys me but it seems to be set up as the natural order. The principle that a person has a right to rule over another due to an accident of birth or application of force, we had to fight long hard to shake that off, no help from the good book.
Quote from: Whitney on April 24, 2012, 03:27:56 AM
Rape...that's another thing that's not immoral according to christianity. It's only immoral if a man rape someone he doesn't intend to keep as a wife or that is already married. Then it is left up to the woman to prove that she was raped by having to present witnesses who can say that she did indeed cry out for help loud enough. And once raped the woman is figuratively and literally screwed either way since it's either forced marriage or death.
I really don't know where you get this from. The idea that Christianity sanctions rape is certainly novel.
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: Whitney on April 24, 2012, 03:27:56 AM
Rape...that's another thing that's not immoral according to christianity. It's only immoral if a man rape someone he doesn't intend to keep as a wife or that is already married. Then it is left up to the woman to prove that she was raped by having to present witnesses who can say that she did indeed cry out for help loud enough. And once raped the woman is figuratively and literally screwed either way since it's either forced marriage or death.
I really don't know where you get this from. The idea that Christianity sanctions rape is certainly novel.
For example Deuteronomy 22:
Quote23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22&version=NIV
Also:
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
Quote from: history_geek on April 24, 2012, 11:39:45 AM
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: Whitney on April 24, 2012, 03:27:56 AM
Rape...that's another thing that's not immoral according to christianity. It's only immoral if a man rape someone he doesn't intend to keep as a wife or that is already married. Then it is left up to the woman to prove that she was raped by having to present witnesses who can say that she did indeed cry out for help loud enough. And once raped the woman is figuratively and literally screwed either way since it's either forced marriage or death.
I really don't know where you get this from. The idea that Christianity sanctions rape is certainly novel.
For example Deuteronomy 22:
Quote23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22&version=NIV
Also:
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
The bible is a mess of contradictions and the fact remains that the sanctioning of rape does not represent Christian orthodoxy and it is futile to pretend otherwise.
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
The bible is a mess of contradictions and the fact remains that the sanctioning of rape does not represent Christian orthodoxy and it is futile to pretend otherwise.
I'm sorry, but when people claim to base their theology on one book and continually use that book to defend their position, including their superior morality, it is perfectly valid to bring up all the immoral aspects of the bible.
I don't think anyone is pretending Christians still sanction rape, but when we are talking about moral superiority, Christianity doesn't have the best tract record. In fact, their book is a hodgepodge of immoral behavior.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
The bible is a mess of contradictions and the fact remains that the sanctioning of rape does not represent Christian orthodoxy and it is futile to pretend otherwise.
I'm sorry, but when people claim to base their theology on one book and continually use that book to defend their position, including their superior morality, it is perfectly valid to bring up all the immoral aspects of the bible.
I don't think anyone is pretending Christians still sanction rape, but when we are talking about moral superiority, Christianity doesn't have the best tract record. In fact, their book is a hodgepodge of immoral behavior.
I was responding directly to the preposterous claim that "Rape...that's another thing that's not immoral according to Christianity." Christians might argue that much of what was (arguably in some cases still is) done in the name of their religion was in fact based on a gross distortion and subversion of its true tenets. The Bible is a farrago of barbarism and contradictory versions of Jesus's import and significance, subject to mistranslations, endless re-writes, selective editing and theological reverse-engineering. I'm not convinced that it's actually possible to reconstruct a coherent and persuasive account of Christian doctrine from the Bible itself; hence the myriad interpretations espoused by the disparate branches of this fractured faith.
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 05:56:28 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
The bible is a mess of contradictions and the fact remains that the sanctioning of rape does not represent Christian orthodoxy and it is futile to pretend otherwise.
I'm sorry, but when people claim to base their theology on one book and continually use that book to defend their position, including their superior morality, it is perfectly valid to bring up all the immoral aspects of the bible.
I don't think anyone is pretending Christians still sanction rape, but when we are talking about moral superiority, Christianity doesn't have the best tract record. In fact, their book is a hodgepodge of immoral behavior.
I was responding directly to the preposterous claim that "Rape...that's another thing that's not immoral according to Christianity." Christians might argue that much of what was (arguably in some cases still is) done in the name of their religion was in fact based on a gross distortion and subversion of its true tenets. The Bible is a farrago of barbarism and contradictory versions of Jesus's import and significance, subject to mistranslations, endless re-writes, selective editing and theological reverse-engineering. I'm not convinced that it's actually possible to reconstruct a coherent and persuasive account of Christian doctrine from the Bible itself; hence the myriad interpretations espoused by the disparate branches of this fractured faith.
So when passages are extracted from the actual bible, you make an excuse for it? :\
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 24, 2012, 07:37:33 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 05:56:28 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 24, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 24, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
The bible is a mess of contradictions and the fact remains that the sanctioning of rape does not represent Christian orthodoxy and it is futile to pretend otherwise.
I'm sorry, but when people claim to base their theology on one book and continually use that book to defend their position, including their superior morality, it is perfectly valid to bring up all the immoral aspects of the bible.
I don't think anyone is pretending Christians still sanction rape, but when we are talking about moral superiority, Christianity doesn't have the best tract record. In fact, their book is a hodgepodge of immoral behavior.
I was responding directly to the preposterous claim that "Rape...that's another thing that's not immoral according to Christianity." Christians might argue that much of what was (arguably in some cases still is) done in the name of their religion was in fact based on a gross distortion and subversion of its true tenets. The Bible is a farrago of barbarism and contradictory versions of Jesus's import and significance, subject to mistranslations, endless re-writes, selective editing and theological reverse-engineering. I'm not convinced that it's actually possible to reconstruct a coherent and persuasive account of Christian doctrine from the Bible itself; hence the myriad interpretations espoused by the disparate branches of this fractured faith.
So when passages are extracted from the actual bible, you make an excuse for it? :\
I've explained that the Bible is an inconsistent mishmash.Not every passage in it reflects Christian dogma.I'm not really interested in the mechanics of how Christians have sidelined or downplayed the embarrassing bits of the Old Testament.I'm not really interested either in attacking a straw man and pretending that Christians approve of rape on the basis of selective quotations from the Bible.
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel.
A person using this argument isn't open minded and isn't basing opinion on actions but instead assertions.
God is good and perfect therefore drowning almost everyone, the animals and plant life was the good, perfect thing to do, setting a couple of bears onto children was the good, perfect thing to do, Moses commanding his army to rape virgin girls was good and perfect. Slavery, good and perfect. All hail the mighty YHWH.
Quote from: Stevil on April 24, 2012, 09:53:26 PM
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel.
A person using this argument isn't open minded and isn't basing opinion on actions but instead assertions.
God is good and perfect therefore drowning almost everyone, the animals and plant life was the good, perfect thing to do, setting a couple of bears onto children was the good, perfect thing to do, Moses commanding his army to rape virgin girls was good and perfect. Slavery, good and perfect. All hail the mighty YHWH.
This is such a sad, brainwashed way of thinking.
How simple minded these type of people are.
I cant wait til the lot of this generation dies off.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 24, 2012, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 24, 2012, 09:53:26 PM
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel.
A person using this argument isn't open minded and isn't basing opinion on actions but instead assertions.
God is good and perfect therefore drowning almost everyone, the animals and plant life was the good, perfect thing to do, setting a couple of bears onto children was the good, perfect thing to do, Moses commanding his army to rape virgin girls was good and perfect. Slavery, good and perfect. All hail the mighty YHWH.
This is such a sad, brainwashed way of thinking.
How simple minded these type of people are.
I cant wait til the lot of this generation dies off.
Wishing people dead isn't very nice ;)
Quote from: Tank on April 25, 2012, 08:18:32 AM
Wishing people dead isn't very nice ;)
One can, however, apply Asmoskills to it and make it, if nothing else, interesting ;D
Quote from: Asherah on April 23, 2012, 03:36:49 AM
Over the weekend, I was talking with my mom, who is a very strong Christian. We were talking about morals. So, her point was that, Christian morals have changed the cultures in which most people have embraced Christianity.
When I say Christian morals, I'm talking about forgiveness, patience, kindness, self-control, selfless giving, charity, caring for orphans and widows, etc. If a Christian is living a good life, then they usually display these kinds of attributes...not always, but usually....at least in my experience. I have to admit that I didn't know how to respond. She is right that I am heavily influenced by Christian morality and I want to follow that moral code.
-To begin
Very nice avatar!
Christian "morals" do not exist. They borrow a STOIC version of moral code (ancient greek philosophers) and on top of it apply confusion and exception to what is understood by common sense and common empathy as right and wrong. Read Nietchze : the antichrist, for more explicit detail.
The positive sociability values and strengths of HUMAN characters of temperance and love, forgiveness, compassion etc. are ever so much older than the new patchwork upstart imposter christians' appearance and conquest BY BLOOD AND SWORD.
(A christian Displaying their "goodness" and "piousness" is a sick and hypocritic game of ettiquette. an appropriate response is to vommit on them
I cannot go into the immense and very interesting ethnographic material that shows that both good and bad behaviours are linked and appear in all societies irrespective of religion and development. Modern western societies have become more humane as they moved AWAY from christian dogma. If you plot the christian influence on the profile of western civilisation you can see that a focus on christianity = dark middle ages
You cannot explain all this to your mum. Love her and accept her and try not to be too upset by her fixations. Also one can be gratefull with a parent that pisses them off, as the negative feelings can be used to counterbalance the grief when the parent passes away...
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!
Interestingly, William Wilberforce who was the moving spirit behind the abolition of slavery in Great Britian was inspired to do so by his devout Christian principles.
There is nothing unique (therefore not superior) in terms of morality in Christianity that isn't already present in Judaism, The teachings of Jesus if the bible of Jesus and Paul is to be believed do not show anything different to the teachings of Judaism, its really the beliefs of Paul and the actions from the various different church authorities that create the difference between the two. But in terms in morals Christianity is far from unique in secular philosophy or philosophy in religion. My personal opinion is that its actually pretty rubbish especially when you start looking at the eastern religions , even the teaching of Confucius which are parallel to Christianity are far more in depth and interesting with reasons for each rather than "because god(I) says so" language that is found throughout Christianity.
Quote from: Asmodean on April 25, 2012, 09:10:53 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 25, 2012, 08:18:32 AM
Wishing people dead isn't very nice ;)
One can, however, apply Asmoskills to it and make it, if nothing else, interesting ;D
Gotcha :)
Quote from: En_Route on April 25, 2012, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!
Interestingly, William Wilberforce who was the moving spirit behind the abolition of slavery in Great Britian was inspired to do so by his devout Christian principles.
That is a nasty twist you put on the story,
his motivation was his philanthropy NOT the moronic dogma of devoutness you proclaim
In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition...His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropist)
devout christian principles also existed in medieval torture gardens
what changed was the Age of Enlightnment HUMANISM
not
segregatory hypocrits
Quote from: pytheas on April 25, 2012, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 25, 2012, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: Asherah on April 24, 2012, 02:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tank on April 23, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
There are things in the Bible, Slavery for example, that have been eradicated, or at least legislated against, in all civilised societies as human moral behaviour evolves.
I brought up this very thing to my mom and she said that biblical slavery wasn't cruel. They had slaves because the slaves had a debt to pay off and they treated the slaves decently. And, I said, "So, slavery is okay as long as the slave has a debt to pay and the owner treats them nice? Why don't we do that nowadays?" and she said, "Because people go and file bankruptcy." But, I should have really pressed her on that. Because, even if people couldn't file bankruptcy, we wouldn't keep slaves because forcing someone into slavery, no matter how "nice" the conditions might be, is wrong!!!
Interestingly, William Wilberforce who was the moving spirit behind the abolition of slavery in Great Britian was inspired to do so by his devout Christian principles.
That is a nasty twist you put on the story,
his motivation was his philanthropy NOT the moronic dogma of devoutness you proclaim
In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition...His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropist)
devout christian principles also existed in medieval torture gardens
what changed was the Age of Enlightnment HUMANISM
not
segregatory hypocrits
Per the BBC:
His dissolute lifestyle changed completely when he became an evangelical Christian, and in 1790 joined a leading group known as the Clapham Sect. His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform, particularly the improvement of factory conditions in Britain.
He worked with the poor, he worked to establish educational reform, prison reform, health care reform and to limit the number of hours children were required to work in factories.
Wilberforce believed that he and his supporters should attempt to cure every social ill in the country.
To deal with many of these problems they established organisations that would work to improve or rectify the particular social injustice that they were dealing with.
Wilberforce also used his large income for good causes, donating generously to charity and cutting the rents he charged the tenants on his land."
Quote from: En_Route on April 25, 2012, 03:43:44 PM
Per the BBC:
His dissolute lifestyle changed completely when he became an evangelical Christian, and in 1790 joined a leading group known as the Clapham Sect. His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform, particularly the improvement of factory conditions in Britain.
He worked with the poor, he worked to establish educational reform, prison reform, health care reform and to limit the number of hours children were required to work in factories.
Wilberforce believed that he and his supporters should attempt to cure every social ill in the country.
To deal with many of these problems they established organisations that would work to improve or rectify the particular social injustice that they were dealing with.
Wilberforce also used his large income for good causes, donating generously to charity and cutting the rents he charged the tenants on his land."
That makes him a humanist, a (pre-)socialist, someone with strong empathy motivation. that is genetically determined. His human construction drove him to become interested in aspects of human rights.
"Christian Faith prompted" is pure propaganda,the rest of the article I go along with.
Face it , there are NO CHRISTIANS LEFT after the First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)
Donate everything, give shelter rent-free, from a position of power its easy to look nice
Quote from: pytheas on April 25, 2012, 09:16:24 AM
Christian "morals" do not exist. They borrow a STOIC version of moral code (ancient greek philosophers) and on top of it apply confusion and exception to what is understood by common sense and common empathy as right and wrong. Read Nietchze : the antichrist, for more explicit detail.
There is an element of truth in this. However it is a very one-sided account. It is true that Christianity does take a lot from the stoics; and for that matter they also crib from Aristotle's ethical system via Aquinas. However in blending ancient philosophical ethical systems with scripture Christians have rendered idiosyncratic moral systems of their own.
Nietzsche's critique has some strengths. The Augustinian tradition (which became dominant in European Christian thought) strongly rejected the body as the seat of sin. Augustine's extraordinary claims (for example: that sex is
inherently sinful; that we are all born sinners and do not deserve forgiveness etc...) certainly justified a pretty grim ethical outlook that justified countless instances of barbarism (not to mention the horrendous societal effect of everyone believing that they deserve eternal damnation). In this context Nietzsche is a breath of clear mountain air.
Having said that Nietzsche leads us out into the void with no clear path back. Zarathustra's radical cry of the death of God is hugely profound. As Anscombe points out in
Modern Moral Philosophy we were left, post-enlightenment, in a peculiar situation where we have a rule concept of ethics (think ten commandments) but we have killed off the rule-giver (God). So where does that leave us?
Nietzsche's answer that we must re-value for ourselves seems to me hopelessly egocentric. Whether it is the ubermench in
Zarathustra or the 'nobleman' in
Beyond Good and Evil his new ethical system relates almost exclusively to the individual who can separate themselves from the 'heard' - the man who leaves the market place and climbs up the mountains.
Yet it is surely obvious that ethics are societal, they must arise from interaction, not introspection. In this I find Keirkegaard a nice counterpoint to Nietzsche. Like Nietzsche he points to the absurdity of ethical norms. But having stepped into the void he then comes back. Nietzsche's ubermench cries "No" and wishes to forge his own path; Keirkegaard's Knight of Faith, faced with the same absurdity, cries "Yes" and rejoins society (put in Nietzschian terms, he visits the mountains but lives in the market).
I side with Kiekegaard; Nietzsche's project is hopeless; none of us have the
will to forge our own ethical systems. Ethics are collaborative.
As for the question "are Xian morals superior?" I think it hardly matters; our societies (and possibly our genetics) will shape the ethical norms we hold. As the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi might have said: we should go with the flow.
Quote from: pytheas on April 25, 2012, 09:16:24 AM
Christian "morals" do not exist. They borrow a STOIC version of moral code (ancient greek philosophers) and on top of it apply confusion and exception to what is understood by common sense and common empathy as right and wrong. Read Nietchze : the antichrist, for more explicit detail.
Quote from: penfold on April 26, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
It is true that Christianity does take a lot from the stoics.. and also Aristotle's ethical system via Aquinas. However in blending ancient philosophical ethical systems with scripture Christians have rendered idiosyncratic moral systems of their own.
Allowing each one to blend their own f---ng ingredients into their own personal favourite cocktails in the blender, sounds like a better approach, don't you think?
Quote from: penfold on April 26, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
Having said that Nietzsche leads us out into the void with no clear path back. post-enlightenment, a peculiar situation where we have a rule concept of ethics but we have killed off the rule-giver (God?). So where does that leave us?
Try Albert Camus in the sysiphos tale...to the biblemongers I show Nietzsche, to modern "enlightened and eager to be awakened" reflection i would start with Camus.
obvious that ethics are societal, they must be studied in society, sociology psychology anthropology ethnography i.e. science
When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.
If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.
Quote from: Tanker on June 06, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.
If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.
It is a feasible position to distinguish between the barbarism of the OT and the more benevolent (although incoherent and rather garbled) NT. It requires some nimble intellectual gymnastics to achieve this, but nevertheless Christians who are not pro-rape etc still look to the NT as the foundation for their morality.
Quote from: Tanker on June 06, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.
If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.
Excellent post.
My friends are approximately evenly divided among athiest, christian and jewish.
Ranking "morality" from high to low (in a totally non-scientific pulled out of thin air manner):
Atheists
Jews
Christians
I believe the Christian problem is they think they have all the answers. You know, "God said it, I believe it, end of story".
Jews at least seem to recognize that thier religion has to be interperted. They discuss it. They argue about. I once asked three Jewish brothers if Jews believe in heaven. The first said yes, the second no, and the third said it didn't matter. And they all agreed with that. Very un-christian.
Atheists, they have to figure it out as they go. They don't have a road map. In my humble opinion, I think this causes them to act more "morally".
Quote from: En_Route on June 07, 2012, 09:07:59 PM
Quote from: Tanker on June 06, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
When the author of your morals is also a sexist, racist, homophobic, petty, wrath filled, bigoted, mass murdering, hypocrite you lose the right to claim it as a source of high morality.
If you have to pick and choose the good morals while explaining away the bad, like rape murder, slavery, ect, then weather you realize it or not you are agreeing that the Bible is not a moral authority.
It is a feasible position to distinguish between the barbarism of the OT and the more benevolent (although incoherent and rather garbled) NT. It requires some nimble intellectual gymnastics to achieve this, but nevertheless Christians who are not pro-rape etc still look to the NT as the foundation for their morality.
Cherry picking. The usual. :(
Quote from: technolud on June 08, 2012, 02:39:38 AM
My friends are approximately evenly divided among athiest, christian and jewish.
Ranking "morality" from high to low (in a totally non-scientific pulled out of thin air manner):
Atheists
Jews
Christians
I believe the Christian problem is they think they have all the answers. You know, "God said it, I believe it, end of story".
Jews at least seem to recognize that thier religion has to be interperted. They discuss it. They argue about. I once asked three Jewish brothers if Jews believe in heaven. The first said yes, the second no, and the third said it didn't matter. And they all agreed with that. Very un-christian.
Atheists, they have to figure it out as they go. They don't have a road map. In my humble opinion, I think this causes them to act more "morally".
So how do you rank competing moralities without a road map? You have to have lready decided on a set of what you think are correct moral principles in order to be able to pass any judgement.
So how do you rank competing moralities without a road map? You have to have lready decided on a set of what you think are correct moral principles in order to be able to pass any judgement.
I was using Ashera's definition from the beginning of the thread.
QuoteSo, I was wondering out of those here who operate by a moral code that is good (what most consider good...not murdering, not committing adultery, giving to the poor, etc..),
I guess in my own mind I was thinking about how much people cheat me or others and how kind they were to others. I don't have much expierence with murderers.
Just really trying to make the point that it seems like people that have to think about and decide what is "moral" do a better job of it then folks reading from a script. Obviously this is all anectdotal.
Quote from: technolud on June 08, 2012, 11:11:14 AM
So how do you rank competing moralities without a road map? You have to have lready decided on a set of what you think are correct moral principles in order to be able to pass any judgement.
I was using Ashera's definition from the beginning of the thread.
QuoteSo, I was wondering out of those here who operate by a moral code that is good (what most consider good...not murdering, not committing adultery, giving to the poor, etc..),
I guess in my own mind I was thinking about how much people cheat me or others and how kind they were to others. I don't have much expierence with murderers.
Just really trying to make the point that it seems like people that have to think about and decide what is "moral" do a better job of it then folks reading from a script. Obviously this is all anectdotal.
Ironically, Asherah's definition of what is good is what "most people" would think of being as good. So it is a kind of majoritarian morality, not one arrived at independently and individually at all. Of course, what is meant here is what most Western liberals think is "good". Though I'm not sure that most liberals would necessarily condemn adultery, certainly not on all cases anyway. And why would you say adultery is wrong in any event? Leaving aside that it presupposes marriage in the first instance.
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
Ironically, Asherah's definition of what is good is what "most people" would think of being as good. So it is a kind of majoritarian morality, not one arrived at independently and individually at all. Of course, what is meant here is what most Western liberals think is "good". Though I'm not sure that most liberals would necessarily condemn adultery, certainly not on all cases anyway. And why would you say adultery is wrong in any event? Leaving aside that it presupposes marriage in the first instance.
Fair enough, but don't you think that there is value in having a thought process behind "why" these things are good that goes beyond "god says so." I would say that my morality is a mixture of accepting the things that most people agree are good, and discarding some beliefs that I was brought up to believe (example: homosexuality is sinful, a woman who sleeps around is sinful, et cetera) based on thinking through *why* an action is either good or bad or neutral or often maybe a little bit of both.
Quote from: Ali on June 08, 2012, 04:55:52 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
Ironically, Asherah's definition of what is good is what "most people" would think of being as good. So it is a kind of majoritarian morality, not one arrived at independently and individually at all. Of course, what is meant here is what most Western liberals think is "good". Though I'm not sure that most liberals would necessarily condemn adultery, certainly not on all cases anyway. And why would you say adultery is wrong in any event? Leaving aside that it presupposes marriage in the first instance.
Fair enough, but don't you think that there is value in having a thought process behind "why" these things are good that goes beyond "god says so." I would say that my morality is a mixture of accepting the things that most people agree are good, and discarding some beliefs that I was brought up to believe (example: homosexuality is sinful, a woman who sleeps around is sinful, et cetera) based on thinking through *why* an action is either good or bad or neutral or often maybe a little bit of both.
So what criteria do you use to decide if an action is bad?
It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?" Then there are levels. If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad. It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong. If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care. If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help. And so on.
Quote from: Ali on June 08, 2012, 05:41:06 PM
It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?" Then there are levels. If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad. It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong. If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care. If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help. And so on.
You seem to be advocating a form of consequentialism in which the effects of an action on those who do not share your views may carry less weight. All varieties of consequentalism are controversial and problematic ( how do you weigh help against hurt and over what time-scale?).Nobody who argues for it actually adheres to it. Thus for example if you gave most of your money away to people in very straitened circumstances the aggregate gain in their happiness is likely to exceed the hurt incurred by you and your family, but this calculus is I assume not very appealing to you. In practice, people in relatively privileged circumstances such as ourselves, tend take that as the starting point and as a given.
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 10:42:25 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 08, 2012, 05:41:06 PM
It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?" Then there are levels. If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad. It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong. If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care. If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help. And so on.
You seem to be advocating a form of consequentialism in which the effects of an action on those who do not share your views may carry less weight. All varieties of consequentalism are controversial and problematic ( how do you weigh help against hurt and over what time-scale?).Nobody who argues for it actually adheres to it. Thus for example if you gave most of your money away to people in very straitened circumstances the aggregate gain in their happiness is likely to exceed the hurt incurred by you and your family, but this calculus is I assume not very appealing to you. In practice, people in relatively privileged circumstances such as ourselves, tend take that as the starting point and as a given.
To the bolded: only if they're assholes. :D
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? :D *Taps foot expectantly*
I accept the whole "morality is relative" argument. I think Ali also makes a viable point, its not unreasonable to judge an action which harms another (hit them over the head with a bat in order to steal thier ipod) as "bad" or "undesireable". For the extent of this argument lets equate "immoral" to "bad", as just defined.
The original question was whether Christian "morals" read un-badness, were superior to non-christian unbadness. I still suggest not.
Quote from: technolud on June 08, 2012, 11:35:16 PM
I accept the whole "morality is relative" argument. I think Ali also makes a viable point, its not unreasonable to judge an action which harms another (hit them over the head with a bat in order to steal thier ipod) as "bad" or "undesireable". For the extent of this argument lets equate "immoral" to "bad", as just defined.
The original question was whether Christian "morals" read un-badness, were superior to non-christian unbadness. I still suggest not.
What is meant by bad? Bad for whom, bad with regards to what goal? What are the consequences of acting badly?
Morality, good, bad, evil. It's all just fluffy fluffy, to be interpreted however the powers that be want.
Oh no! Not Stevil and morality again. Aieeeeeee!
I am asking that for the purpose of this discussion, bad be defined as bashing in someones head for no particularly good reason.
Who is most likely to do this. Someone with "Christian Morals" or someone that thinks about consequences?
Quote from: technolud on June 08, 2012, 11:52:18 PM
Oh no! Not Stevil and morality again. Aieeeeeee!
I am asking that for the purpose of this discussion, bad be defined as bashing in someones head for no particularly good reason.
Who is most likely to do this. Someone with "Christian Morals" or someone that thinks about consequences?
I wouldn't call that bad. Particularly pointless, yes. Something that I would wish society to discourage, yes, because not do so would make the world a more menacing and unpleasant place. I am afraid you cannot escape the clutches of the admirable Stevil so easily. Bad or immoral are purely social constructs,which are not capable of verification or which possess any kind of objectivity or any persuasive power except to the extent that we internalise them. On the whole, it seems to me that statistically a Christian is more likely to inflict senseless violence than an atheist simply because there are so many more of them.
Quote from: Ali on June 08, 2012, 11:24:04 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 10:42:25 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 08, 2012, 05:41:06 PM
It's usually a formula involving questions about "who does this action hurt?" and "who does this action help?" Then there are levels. If the action hurts no one, or shouldn't hurt anyone if they weren't acting like assholes (example: homosexuality; some people say it "hurts society" but that's only because they're assholes.) then it's not bad. It's not necessarily good, but it's probably not wrong. If the action only hurts the individual doing the action (example: not wearing your seatbelt, overeating) then it's probably not "good" but I probably don't care. If the action stands to hurt one person, but help others, the hurt has to be weighed against the help. And so on.
You seem to be advocating a form of consequentialism in which the effects of an action on those who do not share your views may carry less weight. All varieties of consequentalism are controversial and problematic ( how do you weigh help against hurt and over what time-scale?).Nobody who argues for it actually adheres to it. Thus for example if you gave most of your money away to people in very straitened circumstances the aggregate gain in their happiness is likely to exceed the hurt incurred by you and your family, but this calculus is I assume not very appealing to you. In practice, people in relatively privileged circumstances such as ourselves, tend take that as the starting point and as a given.
To the bolded: only if they're assholes. :D
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? :D *Taps foot expectantly*
I don't. And with one bound he was free...
Quote from: technolud on June 08, 2012, 11:52:18 PM
Oh no! Not Stevil and morality again. Aieeeeeee!
I am asking that for the purpose of this discussion, bad be defined as bashing in someones head for no particularly good reason.
Who is most likely to do this. Someone with "Christian Morals" or someone that thinks about consequences?
First off this is a false antithesis. Christians think about consequences. Everyone does. Atheists are simply people who do not believe in a god. A lot of them probably subscribe to ideologies or philosophies which are as rigid and maybe not even as rational as some religions. I really have no time for this fulsome self- praise some atheists are so ready to heap on themselves.
QuoteI wouldn't call that bad
Yes, but the person that gets bashed on the head might.
QuoteChristians 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.
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!
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 03:58:36 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 09, 2012, 04:33:22 AM
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 03:58:36 AM
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.
Quote from: technolud on June 09, 2012, 02:14:31 AM
QuoteChristians 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.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 09, 2012, 04:56:09 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 09, 2012, 04:33:22 AM
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 03:58:36 AM
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?
Quote from: technolud on June 09, 2012, 02:10:10 AM
QuoteI wouldn't call that bad
Yes, but the person that gets bashed on the head might.
Not if you bashed him good and proper.
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 12:27:05 AM
QuoteTo the bolded: only if they're assholes. :D
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? :D *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?"
Quote from: Ali on June 09, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 12:27:05 AM
QuoteTo the bolded: only if they're assholes. :D
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? :D *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.
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
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?
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 03:37:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 05:40:05 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Ali on June 09, 2012, 05:45:33 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 03:37:38 PM
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.
QuoteNot 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"?
Quote from: technolud on June 09, 2012, 08:46:04 PM
QuoteNot 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.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 09, 2012, 04:56:09 AM
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
QuoteKindness 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.
QuoteAnd 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.
It seems your willing to cut yourself a lot more slack about your beliefs then you allow others.
Quote from: technolud on June 09, 2012, 11:26:49 PM
QuoteKindness 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.
QuoteAnd of course your touching faith that people will all find their way to this universal touchstone of truth if unencumbered 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.
It seems your willing to cut yourself a lot more slack about your beliefs then you allow others.
Your beliefs seem to me to be just Utopian assertions without anything to back them up.
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 06:23:13 PM
"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.
It's not impossible at all. The US Constitution gives everyone the right to "Life, Libert, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the basis for its rules. That's not any more vague than the idea of humans prospering as a species, and its served as the basis of a very effective document of governing. The whole point of the Constitution, or any other laws/Constitutions in other countries, is for society to work together and support each other so that everyone is able to feed themselves, live their lives with freedom and without the fear that they'll be cheated out of their money by the banks, etc.
As far as your response to the clerk and someone else throwing coffee in her face, that's a bit disturbing, I must admit. Do you really feel we as a species and society would benefit by saying it's perfectly ok to do something like that? Because if so, it's a regression from the progress we've made over the last few thousand years.
Would you, as that clerk, say "Ok, you had every right to give me third degree burns"?
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2012, 11:45:35 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 06:23:13 PM
"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.
It's not impossible at all. The US Constitution gives everyone the right to "Life, Libert, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the basis for its rules. That's not any more vague than the idea of humans prospering as a species, and its served as the basis of a very effective document of governing. The whole point of the Constitution, or any other laws/Constitutions in other countries, is for society to work together and support each other so that everyone is able to feed themselves, live their lives with freedom and without the fear that they'll be cheated out of their money by the banks, etc.
As far as your response to the clerk and someone else throwing coffee in her face, that's a bit disturbing, I must admit. Do you really feel we as a species and society would benefit by saying it's perfectly ok to do something like that? Because if so, it's a regression from the progress we've made over the last few thousand years.
Would you, as that clerk, say "Ok, you had every right to give me third degree burns"?
Well, the glaring inequalities of wealth in the US coupled with its long history of social intolerance rather undercut the grandiose claims you make for its constitution.But that is a by the by. Let's accept that the toleration of random violence is not beneficial to society as a whole. We would expect laws against it in order to maximise our personal safety. You argue that it is also morally "wrong" as an issue of fact, so that the perpetrator of such violence is objectively culpable. The question is "Who says?". The answer is that all moral normsare socially constructed and culturally determined. There are some prohibitions which are well-nigh universal, such as that against murder (though even then there are qualifications and exceptions eg when it is state-sponsored). That doesn't make them "true" ,merely that they are hardwired into us because such taboos were presumably adaptive from an evolutionary perspective. So if I don't care less about the future prospects for the species,that's my privilege. Who are you or anyone else to tell me that I should? Having rejected the myth of god,you are now playing God,setting out your commandments based on a premise that you have decided should be the absolute yardstick by which to judge others.
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 12:45:41 AM
Who are you or anyone else to tell me that I should? Having rejected the myth of god,you are now playing God,setting out your commandments based on a premise that you have decided should be the absolute yardstick by which to judge others.
No one can tell you what you should or should not care about, that's impossible. But what you should or should not
do, that's part of how society functions and personally, I wouldn't care to live in a society that had no concern for punishing detrimental actions and rewarding beneficial ones (i.e., determining and regulating "morality").
In the example of throwing hot coffee into someone's face, I think this is where the "push me/pull you" of a social contract comes into play. It's detrimental to a person to have 3rd degree burns and the social contract says "I won't do harmful things to you, and you won't do them to me" and when that contract gets broken, that's when the law steps in. Leaving decisions about such things as coffee flinging up to individuals is completely unacceptable to me -- I might be willing to trust some people, but I'm not willing to trust everyone.
Of course the decision about what's beneficial and what's detrimental is arbitrary, and there's never going to be complete agreement over every single point and there's always going to be fighting about it and laws made, un-made, and re-made but I don't think that's people playing god, that's just part of the human condition. And again, I wouldn't care to live in a society that was not locked in this struggle.
Agreed, BooksCatsEtc.
Yes En_Route, the US has definitely not lived up to all of its ideals; I'll be the first to agree with that. But the ideals are there and we strive to live up to them, however imperfectly, and that's better than your idea of removing all sense of morality, in my opinion. That's not "playing God", because I never proclaimed I or anyone else knows every answer, and because I don't believe in absolute morality either. But I do believe in relative morality, and the ability of a democratic country to somehow find that line.
If you don't care about the future prospects for the species, that's certainly your right, and I don't presume to take that right away from you. But it is wholly appropriate to take away your right to do harm to others merely because you feel that way. Yes, I know you'll say that's an ambiguous concept that can be exploited. But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Better to struggle to find that line than say there's no line and allow people to throw the coffee in the clerk's face.
Here! Here!
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 03:41:54 AM
If you don't care about the future prospects for the species, that's certainly your right
Here is an unlikely hypothetical, but lets just throw it out there and see what people think.
A disease hits and kills almost all the people in the world.
50 people are left.
They form a society and create some laws.
Just by coincidence all of these 50 people are gay.
Some are women, some are men.
If they all continue to be gay, and true to their gayness they have relationships with people from the same sex, they are not interested in having sex with people from the opposite sex, lets say that the thought of heterosexual sex disgusts them.
If they live life true to their nature the human species will peter out because no-one will have any babies.
Let's just assume that no-one is interested in using a turkey baster.
So is it immoral for them to let the human species die out?
I have found all of the foregoing to be of interest. I would like to propose a working definition of morality or at least immorality. At it simplest morality lies in not hurting other people unnecessarily. As an example i submit the following. It is immoral to steal in order to profit yourself, but, if you are starving it is not immoral to steal food in order to feed yourself.
In regard to the original question Christian morality is not superior simply because there is nothing unique about it. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. are considered immoral worldwide and cross culturally. The definitions of what constitutes the above will very, but, will be similar and Cristian definitions are not superior nor terribly different.
Quote from: Stevil on June 10, 2012, 10:47:08 AM
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 03:41:54 AM
If you don't care about the future prospects for the species, that's certainly your right
Here is an unlikely hypothetical, but lets just throw it out there and see what people think.
A disease hits and kills almost all the people in the world.
50 people are left.
They form a society and create some laws.
Just by coincidence all of these 50 people are gay.
Some are women, some are men.
If they all continue to be gay, and true to their gayness they have relationships with people from the same sex, they are not interested in having sex with people from the opposite sex, lets say that the thought of heterosexual sex disgusts them.
If they live life true to their nature the human species will peter out because no-one will have any babies.
Let's just assume that no-one is interested in using a turkey baster.
So is it immoral for them to let the human species die out?
On the face of it not participating in the specie's propagation shouldn't be immoral.
If the fifty people included some old people and it was agreed the young should care for the old, a moral principle could be established. The current young foresee they will be old one day and it is agreed that offspring should be produced to care for them in old age. The young pay for their future care by expending effort on a new generation. The wilfully childless could be seen as cheating the social pact and hence immoral.
QuoteI have found all of the foregoing to be of interest. I would like to propose a working definition of morality or at least immorality. At it simplest morality lies in not hurting other people unnecessarily. As an example i submit the following. It is immoral to steal in order to profit yourself, but, if you are starving it is not immoral to steal food in order to feed yourself.
Exactly. For the pupose of our discussion one could even tweak the definition to include "theist morality" which presupposes absolute "right and wrong" ten commandmant type stuff, and relative morality, which follows along your definition or that of others on this thread who have suggested morality is about a set of rules which allows people to live together in a society without acting like barbarians.
I think the original question Ashera was asking was really reffering to this second definition, from the original post:
So, I was wondering out of those here who operate by a moral code that is good (what most consider good...not murdering, not committing adultery, giving to the poor, etc..
Which by the way doesn't sound so very different the En_Routes statement about how he chooses to live his life.
QuoteQuote
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.
We really have two different discussion going on here, at cross purposes to some extent. The first disscussion is addressing Ashera's original questions "Are Christian morals superior" and the second is addressing the argument that there is no "morality". Any attempt by the first group to narrow or specify the definition of morality (sort of a spherical cow in a vacuum type of morality I guess) have ended up being dissmissed as hubris or mumbo-jumbo by the theist morality folks which just takes away from the ablility to discuss the original question.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 10, 2012, 02:30:51 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 12:45:41 AM
Who are you or anyone else to tell me that I should? Having rejected the myth of god,you are now playing God,setting out your commandments based on a premise that you have decided should be the absolute yardstick by which to judge others.
No one can tell you what you should or should not care about, that's impossible. But what you should or should not do, that's part of how society functions and personally, I wouldn't care to live in a society that had no concern for punishing detrimental actions and rewarding beneficial ones (i.e., determining and regulating "morality").
With respect, I think you are conflating law and morality. There is no mysterious social contract which the law underwrites. The law is shaped by many cultural, social, political and in some cars religious factors. Like you, I prefer to live in a society which seeks to deter random acts of violence. Apart from people who enjoy inflicting random acts of violence, who wouldn't?
In the example of throwing hot coffee into someone's face, I think this is where the "push me/pull you" of a social contract comes into play. It's detrimental to a person to have 3rd degree burns and the social contract says "I won't do harmful things to you, and you won't do them to me" and when that contract gets broken, that's when the law steps in. Leaving decisions about such things as coffee flinging up to individuals is completely unacceptable to me -- I might be willing to trust some people, but I'm not willing to trust everyone.
Of course the decision about what's beneficial and what's detrimental is arbitrary, and there's never going to be complete agreement over every single point and there's always going to be fighting about it and laws made, un-made, and re-made but I don't think that's people playing god, that's just part of the human condition. And again, I wouldn't care to live in a society that was not locked in this struggle.
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 03:41:54 AM
Agreed, BooksCatsEtc.
Yes En_Route, the US has definitely not lived up to all of its ideals; I'll be the first to agree with that. But the ideals are there and we strive to live up to them, however imperfectly, and that's better than your idea of removing all sense of morality, in my opinion. That's not "playing God", because I never proclaimed I or anyone else knows every answer, and because I don't believe in absolute morality either. But I do believe in relative morality, and the ability of a democratic country to somehow find that line.
If you don't care about the future prospects for the species, that's certainly your right, and I don't presume to take that right away from you. But it is wholly appropriate to take away your right to do harm to others merely because you feel that way. Yes, I know you'll say that's an ambiguous concept that can be exploited. But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Better to struggle to find that line than say there's no line and allow people to throw the coffee in the clerk's face.
As I have said in my previous post, Laws against random violence make life safer and more pleasant for the great majority and pragmatically most of us will be in favour of them. Bit I don't have to label such violence as immoral to favour such a law.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on June 10, 2012, 11:41:07 AM
I have found all of the foregoing to be of interest. I would like to propose a working definition of morality or at least immorality. At it simplest morality lies in not hurting other people unnecessarily. As an example i submit the following. It is immoral to steal in order to profit yourself, but, if you are starving it is not immoral to steal food in order to feed yourself.
In regard to the original question Christian morality is not superior simply because there is nothing unique about it. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. are considered immoral worldwide and cross culturally. The definitions of what constitutes the above will very, but, will be similar and Cristian definitions are not superior nor terribly different.
I still don.t really get it why you have to propose a basis for morality. Why should there be one? And what is the basis for yours? Why should I pay any notice to it? As I've noted before, even the seemingly universal prohibitions turn out to have exceptions and qualifications, and o the extent that they can be regarded as universal this merely means that they are presumably evolutionarily adaptive.
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 12:23:54 PM
Bit I don't have to label such violence as immoral to favour such a law.
So, is it only the sematics you have an issue with?
QuoteI still don.t really get it why you have to propose a basis for morality
This is a straw man argument. MarkMcdaniel was not proposing a basis. He was proposing a definition so we can at least agree on what we are talking about.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 10, 2012, 03:45:41 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 12:23:54 PM
Bit I don't have to label such violence as immoral to favour such a law.
So, is it only the sematics you have an issue with?
No. Take my membership of HAF. There are rules here which are designed to make the forum function in a way that maximises the individual satisfaction that members derive from participating in it. I can approve of those rules as a means to an end which I share. However, I don't regard those rules as having any moral basis.
Quote from: technolud on June 10, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
QuoteI still don.t really get it why you have to propose a basis for morality
This is a straw man argument. MarkMcdaniel was not proposing a basis. He was proposing a definition so we can at least agree on what we are talking about.
I disagree. He was proposing a set of moral principles. The definition of morality is another matter entirely. It is a word with different shades of meaning. I would use it in the sense of a code of conduct which characterises certain actions as wrong and others as right and which holds these distinctions to be a matter of truth.
QuoteI would like to propose a working definition of morality or at least immorality.
Markmcdaniel stated the above. Sure looks like he's trying to propose a definition to me. Don't see "basis" nowhere.
Quote from: technolud on June 10, 2012, 05:20:11 PM
QuoteI would like to propose a working definition of morality or at least immorality.
Markmcdaniel stated the above. Sure looks like he's trying to propose a definition to me. Don't see "basis" nowhere.
That seems to have been what he intended to do but not what he actually did. He did not offer any definition of morality as such, he simply put forward what he thought should be the principles on which his idea of morality would be based viz. the idea of avoiding causing hurt to others. That is not a definition of morality, just one example of how you might go about establishing the ground rules for a particular moral code. You could for example equally have a moral code which is premised on maximising the sum of human happiness or one based on the principle of The Golden Rules. These are not definitions of morality but competing versions of moral beliefs. What they share is an attempt to distinguish between right and wrong by reference to some purportedly objective standard.
En_route, I'm struggling a bit to understand what you object to. You don't seem to object to rules governing random violence like I used, or even the HAF rules, yet you still complain of the use of a definition of morality. What's a rule/law in use today in the Western world that illustrates what you object to?
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 06:23:55 PM
En_route, I'm struggling a bit to understand what you object to. You don't seem to object to rules governing random violence like I used, or even the HAF rules, yet you still complain of the use of a definition of morality. What's a rule/law in use today in the Western world that illustrates what you object to?
It's not a question of objecting to laws or rules as such. They are necessary from a pragmatic perspective. Law and morality are distinct issues however. I don't think random violence is wrong, because that term is meaningless to me. But I like living in a society where steps are taken to minimise its incidence, primarily because that conduces to the personal safety of myself and those to whom I am close or for whom I have some empathy.
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.
Essentially, the "Amoral" person does not claim to know what is "Right" or "Wrong" but instead claims these terms as meaningless, especially without a goal or purpose. It is harder to be an Amoralist because you have to explain actions, you can't simply categorise or paint the world black and white. An "Amoralist" is much less likely to be judgemental and can't ever justify oppressive laws that don't impact the self e.g. laws against prostitution, same sex marriage, polygamy etc.
Stevil, En_Route:
Here's another hypothetical. What if there's a law passed saying that two minorities, neither of which you're a member of, have the right to rape and kill each other and only each other? Doesn't affect you directly. Is that ok by your standards?
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 08:05:12 PM
Stevil, En_Route:
Here's another hypothetical. What if there's a law passed saying that two minorities, neither of which you're a member of, have the right to rape and kill each other and only each other? Doesn't affect you directly. Is that ok by your standards?
Yes it does, conflict within society causes danger to me, I might get caught in the crossfire, also I might have an alliance with a person or people within these minorities, they might be my personal friends, they could be my wife... Its not just me, others from my race might have ties to people from these minorities. The threat of conflict is not isolated to these two minorities.
My allies also help me to survive, when they are in danger I will risk my life to help them and I hope the opposite will also be true.
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 08:05:12 PM
Stevil, En_Route:
Here's another hypothetical. What if there's a law passed saying that two minorities, neither of which you're a member of, have the right to rape and kill each other and only each other? Doesn't affect you directly. Is that ok by your standards?
Well, first off, living in the kind of society that would pass such arbitrary laws would be disturbing in itself. What might it think of next? So, I think it is highly likely that it would therefore affect me indirectly. Putting that to one side, I would think an extreme law of this kind would almost certainly increase the sum of human misery without any countervailing pleasure and my empathy for people in general would lead me on a personal basis to prefer it not to be passed. That is an emotional reaction not a philosophical conclusion. I would not say such a law was immoral or wrong in any objective or verifiable sense, because that usage means nothing to me.
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 08:27:16 PM
Well, first off, living in the kind of society that would pass such arbitrary laws would be disturbing in itself. What might it think of next? So, I think it is highly likely that it would therefore affect me indirectly. Putting that to one side, I would think an extreme law of this kind would almost certainly increase the sum of human misery without any countervailing pleasure and my empathy for people in general would lead me on a personal basis to prefer it not to be passed. That is an emotional reaction not a philosophical conclusion. I would not say such a law was immoral or wrong in any objective or verifiable sense, because that usage means nothing to me.
I have to say I think you're splitting hairs here. You have empathy for people. Doesn't that imply a sense of right/wrong, which is essentially about what's moral?
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 09:32:11 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 08:27:16 PM
Well, first off, living in the kind of society that would pass such arbitrary laws would be disturbing in itself. What might it think of next? So, I think it is highly likely that it would therefore affect me indirectly. Putting that to one side, I would think an extreme law of this kind would almost certainly increase the sum of human misery without any countervailing pleasure and my empathy for people in general would lead me on a personal basis to prefer it not to be passed. That is an emotional reaction not a philosophical conclusion. I would not say such a law was immoral or wrong in any objective or verifiable sense, because that usage means nothing to me.
I have to say I think you're splitting hairs here. You have empathy for people. Doesn't that imply a sense of right/wrong, which is essentially about what's moral?
Empathy is generally part of our make- up although it comes in various degrees and some people don't have any. It is also partial and fickle. We feel a pang when we see starving children in Africa and maybe there and then send off a modest donation, after which we tend to banish their suffering from our mind. Again, empathy presumably was adaptive from an evolutionary perspective, which is why it is the norm to posses it. But one cannot extrapolate from it any objective criteria as to what is right or wrong.
Quote from: Firebird on June 10, 2012, 09:32:11 PM
I have to say I think you're splitting hairs here. You have empathy for people. Doesn't that imply a sense of right/wrong, which is essentially about what's moral?
The problem with moral emotivism is that you then make rules for all based on your own "gut" feeling.
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?
I think liquorice candy is utterly disgusting. Let's outlaw that, yes?
Quote from: Stevil on June 10, 2012, 10:24:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 11, 2012, 12:08:48 AM
Quote from: Stevil on June 10, 2012, 10:24:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 11, 2012, 12:08:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 10, 2012, 10:30:22 PM
I think liquorice candy is utterly disgusting. Let's outlaw that, yes?
Seconded and passed.
Quote from: Stevil on June 10, 2012, 07:54:16 PM
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."
Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 09:03:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Crow on June 11, 2012, 09:54:04 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 09:03:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Stevil on June 12, 2012, 12:12:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 12:24:54 AM
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?
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 12:24:54 AM
Quote from: Stevil on June 12, 2012, 12:12:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 10, 2012, 10:30:22 PM
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...
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 12, 2012, 01:31:52 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 10, 2012, 10:30:22 PM
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....
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 :)
Quote from: Firebird on June 12, 2012, 03:16:23 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 12, 2012, 03:47:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 02:11:20 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 12, 2012, 01:31:52 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 08:58:06 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 10, 2012, 10:30:22 PM
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....
Actually it's my favourite confection and I'll always have a supply at home. I've currently got some beautiful Italian hard liquorice that I got for my birthday. Delicious! And I will fight you to the death to defend it.
And Stevil too? Positively jaw dropping.
New plan. We ship all of the licorice candy in the world to the only two people in the world that can bear to eat it (Siz and Stevil) that way the rest of us never have to go through the trauma of taking a bite of it on accident ever again.
Ali, it sounds like you are dealing with some traumatic event deep in your past involving licorice. It is just candy after all.
Yes. See, that's what happens when someone tries to legislate taste. People hunting eah other down over candy.
In this case, however it's The Asmo's taste that's being legislated, and that is like TOTALLY different. ;D
Quote from: technolud on June 12, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
Ali, it sounds like you are dealing with some traumatic event deep in your past involving licorice. It is just candy after all.
I would call every event in which I have come into contact with licorice "traumatic." There is nothing worse than biting into what you are thinking will be some sort of edible candy, only to find out that it's
licorice. >:( Nothing worse, do you hear me? Forget war. Forget the casual evils we inflict upon our fellow man. Forget chopping down the rain forrest. Licorice doesn't
belong in it's own special ring of hell, it
is it's own special ring of hell.
QuoteI would call every event in which I have come into contact with licorice "traumatic." There is nothing worse than biting into what you are thinking will be some sort of edible candy, only to find out that it's licorice. Angry Nothing worse, do you hear me? Forget war. Forget the casual evils we inflict upon our fellow man. Forget chopping down the rain forrest. Licorice doesn't belong in it's own special ring of hell, it is it's own special ring of hell.
Wow! Thats strong. Not much I feel that strongly about. Certainly not candy.
Quote from: technolud on June 13, 2012, 02:57:40 AM
QuoteI would call every event in which I have come into contact with licorice "traumatic." There is nothing worse than biting into what you are thinking will be some sort of edible candy, only to find out that it's licorice. Angry Nothing worse, do you hear me? Forget war. Forget the casual evils we inflict upon our fellow man. Forget chopping down the rain forrest. Licorice doesn't belong in it's own special ring of hell, it is it's own special ring of hell.
Wow! Thats strong. Not much I feel that strongly about. Certainly not candy.
I sympathize with Ali. Whenever I bite into licorice unawares, it feels like my mouth is trying to turn itself inside out to escape.
On the other hand, licorice did help me make a friend once. She loved licorice and whenever I bought a bag of jelly beans I'd pick out all the licorice flavored ones and give them to her. It was quite a bond.
Did I forget to mention how perfect Black Sambuca is?
Come on people, wotz wrong wit yous?
Quote from: Stevil on June 13, 2012, 04:38:39 AM
Did I forget to mention how perfect Black Sambuca is?
Come on people, wotz wrong wit yous?
Sambuca is nice, but I prefer ouzo. ;)
This licorice discussion is what happens when HAF discusses anything involving morals for too long. Sort of a sugar craving brain burn out I think.
I looked up morality on Wikkipedia and they cover a lot of the same ground but interestingly religious based morals make up just a subset of the different schools of thought concerning moralism.
It seems "ethics" might be a less charged word to use here. Seperating actions "based on the notion of a virtue" from actions based on edicts from GOD.
Morality and ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)
From Wikkipedia:
"Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is that branch of philosophy which addresses questions about morality. The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[6] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals': "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."[7]
Descriptive and normative
In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
Realism and anti-realism
Philosophical theories on the nature and origins of morality (that is, theories of meta-ethics) are broadly divided into two classes:
Moral realism is the class of theories which hold that there are true moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while they might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. This may be the philosophical view propounded by ethical naturalists, however not all moral realists accept that position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists).[8]
Moral anti-realism, on the other hand, holds that moral statements either fail or do not even attempt to report objective moral facts. Instead, they hold that moral claims are derived either from an unsupported belief that there are objective moral facts (error theory, a form of moral nihilism); the speakers' sentiments (emotivism, a form of moral relativism); or any one of the norms prevalent in society (ethical subjectivism, another form of moral relativism).
Theories which claim that morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives (universal prescriptivism), the edicts of a god (divine command theory), or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being (ideal observer theory), are considered anti-realist in the robust sense used here, but are considered realist in the sense synonymous with moral universalism."
Quote from: technolud on June 13, 2012, 10:10:39 AM
This licorice discussion is what happens when HAF discusses anything involving morals for too long. Sort of a sugar craving brain burn out I think.
Good an explanation as any and better than most (tho I could go on nitpicking about the sweetness angle).
QuoteI looked up morality on Wikkipedia and they cover a lot of the same ground but interestingly religious based morals make up just a subset of the different schools of thought concerning moralism.
It seems "ethics" might be a less charged word to use here. Seperating actions "based on the notion of a virtue" from actions based on edicts from GOD.
See? Semantics. Good article tho, I may go into wiki and read more while I'm waiting for the cable guy to arrive.
Christianity, meh... now liquorish! I don't mind it, if I ever see those thin liquorish tubes that are filled with sherbert I will buy the whole box otherwise I'm not fussed. Oh and Laduree liquorish macaroons are pretty damn addictive as well.
Quote from: stevilCome on people, wotz wrong wit yous?
Stevil, you here is New Joisey as well?
Quote from: technolud on June 17, 2012, 01:55:01 AM
Quote from: stevilCome on people, wotz wrong wit yous?
Stevil, you here is New Joisey as well?
Nah, New Zealand eh!
When will New Zealand become Old Zealand anyways? ??? How long can all those "New" places remain new?
Quote from: Asmodean on June 17, 2012, 08:17:20 AM
When will New Zealand become Old Zealand anyways? ??? How long can all those "New" places remain new?
New Zealand was named after the province of Zeeland in the Netherlands. The Dutchies are (again) to blame
Quote from: Asmodean on June 17, 2012, 08:17:20 AM
When will New Zealand become Old Zealand anyways? ??? How long can all those "New" places remain new?
In Dubai they have New New Zealand
Ah, but you see, when I am ten and someone else is 20, I am new compared to them. However, when I am 40 and they are 50, then we are both... Used. Second-hand. OLD.
Thus, the "New" thing is kind of... Weird.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 17, 2012, 10:17:21 AM
Ah, but you see, when I am ten and someone else is 20, I am new compared to them. However, when I am 40 and they are 50, then we are both... Used. Second-hand. OLD.
Thus, the "New" thing is kind of... Weird.
I always thought that about New York.
we'll be New New York, like in Futurama, someday.
Getting back on topic, I have never seen Christianity as a moral religion. They talk the talk of being moral and good, but when a religion condones slavery, genocide, discrimination, human intellectual repression, and has lived up to these killing standards over the last 2000 years to the tune of 250,000,000 humans killed, than it is just BS not truth. I have to say the Christian faith is amoral, and based on power and greed. When you open your eyes to the truth it is like the old black spritural said, "the Truth Will Set You Free". We just need to get more people to take a look at what their religion thinks is acceptable.
Quote from: cncracer on July 08, 2012, 11:32:08 AM
Getting back on topic, I have never seen Christianity as a moral religion. They talk the talk of being moral and good, but when a religion condones slavery, genocide, discrimination, human intellectual repression, and has lived up to these killing standards over the last 2000 years to the tune of 250,000,000 humans killed, than it is just BS not truth. I have to say the Christian faith is amoral, and based on power and greed. When you open your eyes to the truth it is like the old black spritural said, "the Truth Will Set You Free". We just need to get more people to take a look at what their religion thinks is acceptable.
That mean old pope is forever urging a return to slavery and finishing where the holocaust left off. Wouldn't surprise if me that death toll is up to 250,000,001 by the time I post this.
Quote from: cncracer on July 08, 2012, 11:32:08 AM
Getting back on topic, I have never seen Christianity as a moral religion. They talk the talk of being moral and good, but when a religion condones slavery, genocide, discrimination, human intellectual repression, and has lived up to these killing standards over the last 2000 years to the tune of 250,000,000 humans killed, than it is just BS not truth. I have to say the Christian faith is amoral, and based on power and greed. When you open your eyes to the truth it is like the old black spritural said, "the Truth Will Set You Free". We just need to get more people to take a look at what their religion thinks is acceptable.
Plus killing and torturing any one that deviated from there orthodoxy. cncracer can you provide a reference for your casulty number. It would not surprise me if it was true, but, I would like to see how it was derived.
There is religious radio show on of a Sunday night with a moderate presenter. I tend to avoid it but it includes a quiz called "The Inquisition." The name doesn't bother me but it does seem a little odd they'd use it. I don't think they'd use Holocaust, pogrom or ethnic cleansing for a name but Inquisition is OK and crusade too I suppose.