Christian tolerance and love....God bless it ~eye roll~
http://christiansforamoralamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/boycott-announcement-hobbit-movie.html (http://christiansforamoralamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/boycott-announcement-hobbit-movie.html)
They're insane!
I quote a sign I saw once on an Anti Westboro Baptist church protester's photo.
Drink the Kool-Aid already
Quote from: IcyBabe on December 29, 2011, 07:54:47 PM
I quote a sign I saw once on an Anti Westboro Baptist church protester's photo. Drink the Kool-Aid already
I have seen that but it's significance eluded me.
It does have a good point though.
These polarised Good Vs Evil movies are rubbish, they lead right into the hands of theistic garbage.
We need more movies and shows that blur these lines.
XMen is good as you get to see that Magneto and Professor X are on the same side but have different philosophy, not evil, but fighting a war of survival.
Heroes also made it difficult to work out who was bad.
We often take this movie BS into real world scenarios, Osama, Saddam etc were evil and the good American's were justified in war to fight Evil.
Quote from: Stevil on December 29, 2011, 08:17:15 PM
We often take this movie BS into real world scenarios, Osama, Saddam etc were evil and the good American's were justified in war to fight Evil.
Any outside observers here who subscribe to the USA being "good"?
Quote from: Asmodean on December 29, 2011, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 29, 2011, 08:17:15 PM
We often take this movie BS into real world scenarios, Osama, Saddam etc were evil and the good American's were justified in war to fight Evil.
Any outside observers here who subscribe to the USA being "good"?
Nope. ;D
These fundie idiots need to take a good look at Leviticus among other books that Jesus the jew was passing off as god's word. Physicians, heal thyselves. ::)
Quote from: Tank on December 29, 2011, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: IcyBabe on December 29, 2011, 07:54:47 PM
I quote a sign I saw once on an Anti Westboro Baptist church protester's photo. Drink the Kool-Aid already
I have seen that but it's significance eluded me.
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid)
Of course, the magic done before the trial, beating and subsequent crucifixion of a Jew...and then...the magic he invokes to never really sacrifice himself and stay alive is a great thing of non fiction to read.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 29, 2011, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 29, 2011, 08:17:15 PM
We often take this movie BS into real world scenarios, Osama, Saddam etc were evil and the good American's were justified in war to fight Evil.
Any outside observers here who subscribe to the USA being "good"?
Not I.
I have thought for the longest time how evil and hypocritical America is. They try to justify all their actions as patriotic. How is that any different from muslim extremists? e_e
Quote from: Asmodean on December 29, 2011, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 29, 2011, 08:17:15 PM
We often take this movie BS into real world scenarios, Osama, Saddam etc were evil and the good American's were justified in war to fight Evil.
Any outside observers here who subscribe to the USA being "good"?
There are many people from the USA that I like, but I can't say that I'd want to live there any time soon. I'm also not naive enough to believe that all of their foreign policy is as noble as they'd like to claim, but, then again, how many countries' are?
Quote from: Recusant on December 30, 2011, 12:15:25 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 29, 2011, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: IcyBabe on December 29, 2011, 07:54:47 PM
I quote a sign I saw once on an Anti Westboro Baptist church protester's photo. Drink the Kool-Aid already
I have seen that but it's significance eluded me.
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F3715%2Ficoncheers.gif&hash=11a49402157ab2272fb1643e5707ffc1bbe6ce00)
I wont read the website cayuse I have a bad habit of teeth grinding
anyway what I find extremely ironic is that tolkien was a christian himself, his stories are the classical good vs evil and he even used some christian references in his books
Quote from: MariaEvri on December 30, 2011, 02:59:24 PM
I wont read the website cayuse I have a bad habit of teeth grinding
anyway what I find extremely ironic is that tolkien was a christian himself, his stories are the classical good vs evil and he even used some christian references in his books
Since you didn't read the article I will point out that they say, "Jackson being the self-proclaimed Atheist he is obviously doesn't want to present this movie in the way it was meant by Tolkien.".
They also say that they brought everyone from 'Middle-earth' back from the dead, but this is a freaking prequel gah.
Also I'm American and if I didn't have family here I would get out ASAP. I have a feeling of bad things for our country very soon, especially with NDAA passing and the possibility that PIPA and SOPA will pass. Though the last two affects everyone.
Quote from: envilid on December 30, 2011, 04:38:56 PM
Also I'm American and if I didn't have family here I would get out ASAP. I have a feeling of bad things for our country very soon, especially with NDAA passing and the possibility that PIPA and SOPA will pass. Though the last two affects everyone.
Which calls me to widen my question a little:
Any
inside observers here who think the USA* is good, possibly even have a foam number one finger stashed away somewhere?
*
Refers not only to the US government, but the standards of living, safety etc. etc. The whole package, in other words.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 30, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Quote from: envilid on December 30, 2011, 04:38:56 PM
Also I'm American and if I didn't have family here I would get out ASAP. I have a feeling of bad things for our country very soon, especially with NDAA passing and the possibility that PIPA and SOPA will pass. Though the last two affects everyone.
Which calls me to widen my question a little:
Any inside observers here who think the USA* is good, possibly even have a foam number one finger stashed away somewhere?
*Refers not only to the US government, but the standards of living, safety etc. etc. The whole package, in other words.
No foam finger, I'm no patriot. However, I think the standard of living in the U.S. looks pretty good when compared with many other places in the world. It does seem, though, like our comfort is largely the result of oppressing or depressing the populations of other countries. Take East Asian sweat shops as an example.
I think the U.S. has fallen miles behind Europe and Canada when it comes to health care and education, which in due time will surely continue to decrease our standard of living.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 30, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Which calls me to widen my question a little:
Any inside observers here who think the USA* is good, possibly even have a foam number one finger stashed away somewhere?
*Refers not only to the US government, but the standards of living, safety etc. etc. The whole package, in other words.
I personally love the USA (though I am getting disgusted with its dysfunctional government). Beautiful landscapes and seascapes, fun and unique cities, generally nice people, large area where generally everyone speaks English (or some form of it), good roads, high standard of living - what's not to like? I like other countries, too, but this is my home, and I'm happy to live here.
I'm leaving for Costa Rica on Jan. 1 for a 9 day business/pleasure trip. I'll give you a comparison of Costa Rica and the USA when I return.
::) Another Christian getting irate over a bit of media which was originally published 74 years ago and the new film isn't intended to be out for another year, and obviously hasn't seen the film making 'ASAkeith' look like a bigger idiot. They should stop putting so much emphasis on fiction.
What could be anti-christian about the film? There is nothing in the book that can associated with the religion, its about a hobbit who goes on a quest with some dwarfs and a wizard to get some gold, they get into some hijinks, acquires a ring, then a sword, gets involved in a war, gets the gold and goes home with some gold in his pocket. What is even relevant to Christianity?
Quote from: Asmodean on December 29, 2011, 08:57:38 PM
Quote from: Stevil on December 29, 2011, 08:17:15 PM
We often take this movie BS into real world scenarios, Osama, Saddam etc were evil and the good American's were justified in war to fight Evil.
Any outside observers here who subscribe to the USA being "good"?
Not anymore, no...
And as for these idiots trying to ban the Hobbit; what are they smoking, and where can I get some? 8)
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 30, 2011, 11:06:25 PM
what are they smoking, and where can I get some? 8)
Spice (http://news.yahoo.com/synthetic-marijuana-problem-us-military-082100931.html)
:)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmichellejbrewer.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F05%2Fthe_church_lady.jpg&hash=29d75b8fdf05af604ed797c1e2a406b6fe037a55)
"This movie is clearly the work of, oh, I don't know...SATAN!!"
Quote from: MariaEvri on December 30, 2011, 02:59:24 PM
I wont read the website cayuse I have a bad habit of teeth grinding
anyway what I find extremely ironic is that tolkien was a christian himself, his stories are the classical good vs evil and he even used some christian references in his books
I did read the link, not that it told me much. The author hasn't seen the movie (if you were thinking he might have gotten a special pre-screening) and was damning it just on general principles. His main gripe was the assumption that an atheist director would remove the story's black/white, good/evil Xtian themes. Perhaps he didn't see the Ring Trilogy either, because I remember those movies being fairly simplistic in the good and evil area.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 30, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Any inside observers here who think the USA* is good, possibly even have a foam number one finger stashed away somewhere?
*Refers not only to the US government, but the standards of living, safety etc. etc. The whole package, in other words.
I think I qualify as a "partly cloudy patriot", a term coined by Sarah Vowell and described by Douglas Cruickshank in his review of Vowell's book of the same name:
. . . a patriot without having to fly the flag from your porch and the antenna of your car every day, if you could skip applauding crappy, gung-ho songs about how great America is, cheering saccharine, saber-rattling speeches about how great America is, and otherwise wallowing in all the lamebrained, jingoistic posturing that now seems required behavior for U.S citizens who wish to demonstrate a commitment to their country?I could get more specific, but I'd just be repeating most of what B4B wrote.
Big WTF moment there after reading that snippet ::)
Almost as ridiculous as when the Pope told people not to read the Da Vinci Code books, looks like some people really aren't grown enough to know fiction when they read (or see) it.
If anything I believe movies that show good vs evil also teach morals to be the good guy and how evil always loses (not that its true), but it shows that evil is kind of a dick.
Quote from: envilid on January 02, 2012, 08:50:17 PM
If anything I believe movies that show good vs evil also teach morals to be the good guy and how evil always loses (not that its true), but it shows that evil is kind of a dick.
The problem with that is you assume your enemy is evil. You do not seek to understand their concerns, you do not look for common goals and for compromise. Good and Evil leads only to war, which is great for action movies.
Quote from: Stevil on January 02, 2012, 09:00:24 PM
Quote from: envilid on January 02, 2012, 08:50:17 PM
If anything I believe movies that show good vs evil also teach morals to be the good guy and how evil always loses (not that its true), but it shows that evil is kind of a dick.
The problem with that is you assume your enemy is evil. You do not seek to understand their concerns, you do not look for common goals and for compromise. Good and Evil leads only to war, which is great for action movies.
Quote from: Stevil on January 02, 2012, 09:00:24 PM
Quote from: envilid on January 02, 2012, 08:50:17 PM
If anything I believe movies that show good vs evil also teach morals to be the good guy and how evil always loses (not that its true), but it shows that evil is kind of a dick.
The problem with that is you assume your enemy is evil. You do not seek to understand their concerns, you do not look for common goals and for compromise. Good and Evil leads only to war, which is great for action movies.
Yes it may not convey the message of compromising with your enemy in these movies because they are in fact evil and that would probably make for a boring movie. I still think that it shows that you should be the good guy that doesn't harm the innocent. I myself wouldn't just assume my enemies are evil though I guess many people do.
Quote from: envilid on January 03, 2012, 12:03:47 AM
Yes it may not convey the message of compromising with your enemy in these movies because they are in fact evil and that would probably make for a boring movie. I still think that it shows that you should be the good guy that doesn't harm the innocent. I myself wouldn't just assume my enemies are evil though I guess many people do.
When George Bush declared war on Iraq he called them evil, Saddam also called America evil.
X-men have made for very entertaining movies. Which side was evil?
In my opinion there is no such thing as evil, no such thing as objective good or objective bad, no such thing as morality. The world is far too complex to polarise it with such nonsense.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 01, 2012, 08:43:55 PM
Big WTF moment there after reading that snippet ::)
Almost as ridiculous as when the Pope told people not to read the Da Vinci Code books, looks like some people really aren't grown enough to know fiction when they read (or see) it.
Lol the one that cracked me up most with the Vatican was their claim recently that women taking birth control are making men sterile through toxic urine going into the environment.....all fear the toxic female pee!!
Argh, I didn't realize my message was evil! ... I mean eaten. XD.
Anyway, both sides do what they think is best. I don't believe in evil either, just horrible people doing shitty things.
How many blew up the church in Nigeria in the name of their gods? They thought they were doing good, but they were killing innocents in the name of "god". I don't see good in that.
Btw, I was always a Magneto fan.
Quote from: Stevil on January 03, 2012, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: envilid on January 03, 2012, 12:03:47 AM
Yes it may not convey the message of compromising with your enemy in these movies because they are in fact evil and that would probably make for a boring movie. I still think that it shows that you should be the good guy that doesn't harm the innocent. I myself wouldn't just assume my enemies are evil though I guess many people do.
When George Bush declared war on Iraq he called them evil, Saddam also called America evil.
X-men have made for very entertaining movies. Which side was evil?
In my opinion there is no such thing as evil, no such thing as objective good or objective bad, no such thing as morality. The world is far too complex to polarise it with such nonsense.
I think that a serial killer would be an objective evil and that there is morality and should be morality that is shown by society. I realize religion and societies can be completely different, but I mean individual people should have a moral compassion. Depending on how you grew up this may be different, but if there were no morals it would be like survival of the fittest.
Don't they know Tolkien was an Inkling pal of CS. Lewis's?
Quote from: Asmodean on December 30, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Any inside observers here who think the USA* is good, possibly even have a foam number one finger stashed away somewhere?
*Refers not only to the US government, but the standards of living, safety etc. etc. The whole package, in other words.
I don't think that we're #1 (we're probably not in the top ten in many areas) but I can honestly say that I like the US. Of course, I've never spent much time outside of it, so that may be why. I consider myself a patriot, but my definition of patriotism doesn't include mindlessly sitting back and accepting the status quo. In my mind, real patriots try to figure out what is going wrong with their country and what they can do to fix it. So I guess I'm a "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" patriot.
Quote from: envilid on January 03, 2012, 01:35:52 AM
I think that a serial killer would be an objective evil and that there is morality and should be morality that is shown by society. I realize religion and societies can be completely different, but I mean individual people should have a moral compassion. Depending on how you grew up this may be different, but if there were no morals it would be like survival of the fittest.
A serial killer is not evil.
I could classify myself as an amoralist or agreeing with moral nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism)
Quote
The meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe
I feel that this is the only logically consistent path that an Atheist can take.
In your above statement you are subscribing to Moral universalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism)
Quote
The meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature
Just because everyone might agree that an act is bad for society and thus should be outlawed and that offenders should be punished, this does not require the adherence or belief in an objective morality.
If a male goes up to another male and kills him so that he can take his female for sexual endeavours does that make the male evil?
What if that male was a dog or wolf, would you still consider it to be evil?
Why are humans so different?
As a society based creature we tend to recognise that there are certain rules that we need in order to coexist peacefully. People that abuse those rules need to be punished in order for us to maintain a functional society. We are intelligent enough to know that we want to be safe and that we want our loved ones to be safe also. We are intelligent enough to extrapolate that out to general members of society. Hence we come up with laws against most forms of murder and rape etc. These rules are human made for the purpose of survival and a functioning society. I guess you could call them a moral code, but I would not go down that path.
Developing a moral code and using law to enforce this will only lead to oppression and eventually conflict (potentially war). Laws need to be made to ensure a functioning society, not a moral one.
As an Atheist if you get into an argument where you are defending a stance on having a moral code, you will always get stuck. From where do you get this moral code? Is it only those items that everyone agrees with? What if a ruler comes into power and kills all those that he/she opposes? Would you be able to contest on the grounds of morality? How could you when not everyone agrees with you (at the very least, the ruler is in disagreement) therefore your morality is subjective. A subjective morality is worthless in my opinion. You cannot use it to force your morals onto others. Who is to decide that your morals are more correct than other person's?
Theists at least can point to their god's morals and point to either their scripture or their religious organisation as the definer of this moral code. Atheists cannot.
All an Atheist can do is to look for an inclusive set of laws to define a functional society, that which represents society and allows freedom beyond the minimum set of rules required for us to co-habitat together.
Of course there are many Atheists who have looked to rule for selfish reasons and hence have become dictators, these people cannot philosophically defend their position, they must rule by force.
Are you saying atheists need a source to point to for their own personal 'moral codes'? o__o I feel good knowing I don't have to open an ancient myth book to understand my own actions.
Quote from: Stevil on January 03, 2012, 03:06:10 AM
er is not evil.
I could classify myself as an amoralist or agreeing with moral nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism)
Quote
The meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe
I feel that this is the only logically consistent path that an Atheist can take.
In your above statement you are subscribing to Moral universalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism)
Quote
The meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature
Just because everyone might agree that an act is bad for society and thus should be outlawed and that offenders should be punished, this does not require the adherence or belief in an objective morality.
If a male goes up to another male and kills him so that he can take his female for sexual endeavours does that make the male evil?
What if that male was a dog or wolf, would you still consider it to be evil?
Why are humans so different?
As a society based creature we tend to recognise that there are certain rules that we need in order to coexist peacefully. People that abuse those rules need to be punished in order for us to maintain a functional society. We are intelligent enough to know that we want to be safe and that we want our loved ones to be safe also. We are intelligent enough to extrapolate that out to general members of society. Hence we come up with laws against most forms of murder and rape etc. These rules are human made for the purpose of survival and a functioning society. I guess you could call them a moral code, but I would not go down that path.
Developing a moral code and using law to enforce this will only lead to oppression and eventually conflict (potentially war). Laws need to be made to ensure a functioning society, not a moral one.
As an Atheist if you get into an argument where you are defending a stance on having a moral code, you will always get stuck. From where do you get this moral code? Is it only those items that everyone agrees with? What if a ruler comes into power and kills all those that he/she opposes? Would you be able to contest on the grounds of morality? How could you when not everyone agrees with you (at the very least, the ruler is in disagreement) therefore your morality is subjective. A subjective morality is worthless in my opinion. You cannot use it to force your morals onto others. Who is to decide that your morals are more correct than other person's?
Theists at least can point to their god's morals and point to either their scripture or their religious organisation as the definer of this moral code. Atheists cannot.
All an Atheist can do is to look for an inclusive set of laws to define a functional society, that which represents society and allows freedom beyond the minimum set of rules required for us to co-habitat together.
Of course there are many Atheists who have looked to rule for selfish reasons and hence have become dictators, these people cannot philosophically defend their position, they must rule by force.
I disagree with your post because of the bolded. I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule". I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong. And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong. For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this. The good ones, anyway. If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving. Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong.
Quote from: Ali on January 03, 2012, 03:57:07 AM
I disagree with your post because of the bolded. I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule". I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong. And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong. For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this. The good ones, anyway. If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving. Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong.
But you are not claiming an objective moral code, only subjective, which to others is meaningless as it is yours and not theirs.
Quote from: Stevil on January 03, 2012, 04:22:03 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 03, 2012, 03:57:07 AM
I disagree with your post because of the bolded. I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule". I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong. And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong. For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this. The good ones, anyway. If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving. Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong.
But you are not claiming an objective moral code, only subjective, which to others is meaningless as it is yours and not theirs.
Well, I think that others already DO follow this code whether they know it or not (in other words, I think that empathy is the real reasoning behind most laws AND the main religious edicts that everyone remembers) so does that count for anything?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on January 03, 2012, 03:44:00 AM
Are you saying atheists need a source to point to for their own personal 'moral codes'? o__o I feel good knowing I don't have to open an ancient myth book to understand my own actions.
No, I am not saying that.
An Atheist can classify something as their own personal moral code if they want to, but they cannot justify pushing this moral code onto others. One person's moral code is no better than another's.
I just don't understand why Atheists even want to use Theistic terms such as morality, good, evil, ethical rights. It is all nonsense and is unnecessary. We don't need to stoop to this in order to prove that our stance is more beneficial to society than that of a theist.
Atheism has no inhibitors towards equality, freedom and fairness, where in my opinion, theism often falls short.
Quote from: Ali on January 03, 2012, 04:29:56 AM
Well, I think that others already DO follow this code whether they know it or not (in other words, I think that empathy is the real reasoning behind most laws AND the main religious edicts that everyone remembers) so does that count for anything?
The golden rule is a great guideline. I love it and try to live by it. It is not my moral code though. Just a principle that makes reasonable sense.
Theists do not live by it. They live by scripture. For many this means trying to stop gay people sinning, trying to stop terminally ill people seeking compassionate death, trying to stop responsible adults using contraceptives, killing women for committing adultery...
If a government tries to enforce morality then society is in for trouble.
Quote from: Stevil on January 03, 2012, 04:22:03 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 03, 2012, 03:57:07 AM
I disagree with your post because of the bolded. I know where I get my moral code, and it has nothing to do with "what everyone agrees on" and everything to do with empathy and "The Golden Rule". I know that if someone steals my stuff or lies to me, or whatever, that would hurt me and I would think it is wrong. And thus I extrapolate that if I did same, it would hurt someone else, and thus be wrong. For the most part, if we act in empathy, we will choose the right (IMO), and I think that the laws typically show this. The good ones, anyway. If someone asks me "Why do you think drinking and driving should be against the law?" I don't need to appeal to a higher power, I just need to show the stats on how many deaths are caused by drinking and driving. Drinking and driving kills people, therefore, it is wrong.
But you are not claiming an objective moral code, only subjective, which to others is meaningless as it is yours and not theirs.
Two people can hold subjective morality that is informed by a common cultural/social background and thus can be very close in practical/pragmatic application. The problem arrises when the subjective culturally informed moralities are too disparate ie a western liberal Christian and Hasidic Jew.
Quote from: Stevil on January 03, 2012, 04:42:01 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 03, 2012, 04:29:56 AM
Well, I think that others already DO follow this code whether they know it or not (in other words, I think that empathy is the real reasoning behind most laws AND the main religious edicts that everyone remembers) so does that count for anything?
The golden rule is a great guideline. I love it and try to live by it. It is not my moral code though. Just a principle that makes reasonable sense.
Theists do not live by it. They live by scripture. For many this means trying to stop gay people sinning, trying to stop terminally ill people seeking compassionate death, trying to stop responsible adults using contraceptives, killing women for committing adultery...
If a government tries to enforce morality then society is in for trouble.
Normally I agree with this statement, but I also have to question what you mean by morality. For example, do you consider stealing to be a moral issue? If so, are you against laws against stealing? And so on for murder, rape, assault, fraud most of the stuff that is currently illegal.
I'm against the government enforcing morality in the case where the issue in question is about personal choice and does not affect everyone else. For example, I am pro-gay marriage, fairly pro-choice, pro-legalization of recreational drugs, et cetera. But I still want the government to have laws against things that hurt other people, such as stealing. It's the old "Your fist ends where my face starts." Do you agree with that, or would you get rid of most laws because they are enforcing some sort of morality?
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 01:14:22 AM
Normally I agree with this statement, but I also have to question what you mean by morality. For example, do you consider stealing to be a moral issue? If so, are you against laws against stealing? And so on for murder, rape, assault, fraud most of the stuff that is currently illegal.
I'm against the government enforcing morality in the case where the issue in question is about personal choice and does not affect everyone else. For example, I am pro-gay marriage, fairly pro-choice, pro-legalization of recreational drugs, et cetera. But I still want the government to have laws against things that hurt other people, such as stealing. It's the old "Your fist ends where my face starts." Do you agree with that, or would you get rid of most laws because they are enforcing some sort of morality?
I have no belief in morality.
I suggest that governments need to enforce laws required for a functional society not a moral one.
A society that steals from each other, causes much disruption and conflict and therefore is not functional. Morality has nothing to do with it.
If a government tries to impose a morality code purely for moral reasons then they are infringing on someone's rights without being able to justify in a way that these people could understand or agree with the infringment, this is oppression and causes conflict and hence is counter to a functioning society.
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 01:25:49 AM
I have no belief in morality.
I suggest that governments need to enforce laws required for a functional society not a moral one.
A society that steals from each other, causes much disruption and conflict and therefore is not functional. Morality has nothing to do with it.
If a government tries to impose a morality code purely for moral reasons then they are infringing on someone's rights without being able to justify in a way that these people could understand or agree with the infringment, this is oppression and causes conflict and hence is counter to a functioning society.
To the bolded - what do you mean? Do you think that all actions are morally neutral?
I just don't necessarily think you can separate function from morality. I agree that stealing (for example) causes disruption and conflict - but why? For the same reason that I would call it "immoral" - because it hurts people. So maybe we're arguing semantics here? Like what I would call "immoral", you would call "dysfunctional", but at the root of it, we are talking about the same thing?
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 01:14:22 AM
For example, do you consider stealing to be a moral issue? If so, are you against laws against stealing? And so on for murder, rape, assault, fraud most of the stuff that is currently illegal.
To me, that these are moral issues is co-incidental to the fact that they're also issues of protecting persons and property, which is what the law is concerned with. The law does not (or should not) attempt to enforce morality but sometimes legal protection does overlap with morality.
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 01:38:51 AM
To the bolded - what do you mean? Do you think that all actions are morally neutral?
Yes. Morality is a human made concept. There is no objective morality, only subjective, therefore you cannot point to acts on grounds of morality as no two persons have exactly the same set of morals.
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 01:38:51 AM
I just don't necessarily think you can separate function from morality. I agree that stealing (for example) causes disruption and conflict - but why? For the same reason that I would call it "immoral" - because it hurts people. So maybe we're arguing semantics here? Like what I would call "immoral", you would call "dysfunctional", but at the root of it, we are talking about the same thing?
If you try to use the term "morality" with regards to anything other than yourself you will always get into trouble, everyone will argue about what the definitive list of morals is. If you open up government to using morality as grounds for imposing law then certain groups will have the philosophical grounds to impose their morality on others. If we keep government's responsibility to a functional society then we overcome these problems.
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 01:59:09 AMYes. Morality is a human made concept. There is no objective morality, only subjective, therefore you cannot point to acts on grounds of morality as no two persons have exactly the same set of morals.
I agree that no two people have the same set of morals, but not having a matching set, doesn't mean that no one has matching pieces. The majority of people have very similar morals about most of the big things, so one can point to actions on the grounds of morality as many people have the same morals.
When discussing which actions are acceptable or not, people don't need to compare their entire set to see if everything matches in order to have a useful discussion, they just need to talk about one thing at a time.
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 01:59:09 AM
If you try to use the term "morality" with regards to anything other than yourself you will always get into trouble, everyone will argue about what the definitive list of morals is. If you open up government to using morality as grounds for imposing law then certain groups will have the philosophical grounds to impose their morality on others. If we keep government's responsibility to a functional society then we overcome these problems.
I tend to think of "morality" less as a list of do's and don'ts, and more as a function for figuring out what is the right thing to do in a given situation.
What I mean by that is that I don't actually have a set in stone list of things that I absolutely would never do and things that I absolutely would do. Life is way more complicated than that. If you ask me "Would you steal from somebody?" my first answer is "no." If you say "Well what if your son was starving and you didn't have any other way to get him food than to steal it?" my answer changes to "yes." Same with killing. If you ask "Would you kill somebody?" my first answer is "of course not!" If you say "what if that was the only way to save yourself, or better yet, your son?" my answer changes to "Probably for myself, definitely for my son." My version of morality (and most people's I think) is not a set of stone tablets with engraved commands that never change.
As such, I think that my "morality" is pretty close to your "functionality" - because the only "morality" that I would want the government to enforce is the simple rule of "don't tread on other people's rights." In other words, don't hurt other people, don't take their stuff, et cetera. It's a function, more than a list. So again, I think we're basically using different words to describe the same idea, only I don't shy away from terms like "morals" and "ethics."
I think morality is just as vague of a term as table manners. Everyone has different standards!
I agree with Ali. Nothing is set in stone, because any situation can change at any point. It's like the whole parents judging another parents because Lacey got pregnant because she was an idiot, but then their own son gets a young teen preganant. suddenly, they are in the same boat.
I do use the whole killing is not okay except in self defense too. I mean , who knows? I would do anything for gf. What if she was being being stalked and (sadly--as in most cases) the police cannot do anything until the stalker attacks? You better believe i'll take actions into my own hands to protect her.
My world is gray. This is the main reason I am atheist. I know there are much more than to sides, and everyone's tale differs.
sorry for kinda minirant. XD
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 02:50:25 PM
I tend to think of "morality" less as a list of do's and don'ts, and more as a function for figuring out what is the right thing to do in a given situation.
What I mean by that is that I don't actually have a set in stone list of things that I absolutely would never do and things that I absolutely would do. Life is way more complicated than that. If you ask me "Would you steal from somebody?" my first answer is "no." If you say "Well what if your son was starving and you didn't have any other way to get him food than to steal it?" my answer changes to "yes." Same with killing.
It sounds to me that you have a personal set of "values". We need these if we want to be able to make decisions quickly. We don't want to go into the lengthy process of evaluating every situation thoroughly, this would be painful and crippling.
Quote
So again, I think we're basically using different words to describe the same idea, only I don't shy away from terms like "morals" and "ethics."
I don't mean to keep harping on in this discussion, hopefully you are finding it interesting to try and understand my position/thoughts rather than feeling that you are defending your own ideas against my attack on you. We can agree to disagree.
But, my thoughts are that the term "morals" is a loaded term which falls into the hands of the theists. Theism has been around for thousands of years and has had a major influence on the language we use. Influencing the definition of our words and the colloquial terms that we use. I feel the words "morals", "immoral", "morality" go beyond a personal set of values and imply a judgment that one uses to view other's action and hence into the realm of defining law.
It implies a common set, an objective morality, which is a theistic theme and in my opinion leads to oppression and conflict. It implies a universal, unchanging truth which polarises situations rather than giving people the room to assess situations based on the complex merits that make up that situation.
Why is it that some laws seem to adhere to a morality standard e.g. don't kill, don't steal but some of the moral code is not supported by law e.g. adultery? Do you think it is immoral to cheat on your partner? Do you think government should get involved and introduce law to support all morality?
Then maybe we need a qualifier on top of the word morality, functional society morality, or personal circumstantial morality etc. This seems to be getting overly complex just to try and keep using the word "moral". I feel we are better to cast it away, it is a nonsensical theistic term.
Quote from: Stevil on January 04, 2012, 06:47:29 PM
I don't mean to keep harping on in this discussion, hopefully you are finding it interesting to try and understand my position/thoughts rather than feeling that you are defending your own ideas against my attack on you. We can agree to disagree.
But, my thoughts are that the term "morals" is a loaded term which falls into the hands of the theists. Theism has been around for thousands of years and has had a major influence on the language we use. Influencing the definition of our words and the colloquial terms that we use. I feel the words "morals", "immoral", "morality" go beyond a personal set of values and imply a judgment that one uses to view other's action and hence into the realm of defining law.
It implies a common set, an objective morality, which is a theistic theme and in my opinion leads to oppression and conflict. It implies a universal, unchanging truth which polarises situations rather than giving people the room to assess situations based on the complex merits that make up that situation.
Why is it that some laws seem to adhere to a morality standard e.g. don't kill, don't steal but some of the moral code is not supported by law e.g. adultery? Do you think it is immoral to cheat on your partner? Do you think government should get involved and introduce law to support all morality?
Then maybe we need a qualifier on top of the word morality, functional society morality, or personal circumstantial morality etc. This seems to be getting overly complex just to try and keep using the word "moral". I feel we are better to cast it away, it is a nonsensical theistic term.
To the bolded, oh no! I don't feel attacked at all! I have thoroughly enjoyed discussing this with you, and thought that everything that you've said has been really smart and thought provoking. You have no idea how starved I am for conversations /debates about things like this.
You make some great points about the term "moral" but I guess my question is – if we remove the term "moral" – what do we use in its place?
I think it's human nature to judge actions as being "right" or "wrong" – and I don't know if we should necessarily discard the idea that there is a "right" and a "wrong". I can certainly agree that when it comes to the law, there need to be lines drawn between what is "wrong" (such as cheating on your spouse) and what is "illegal." But aside from the law, I guess I feel uncomfortable with the notion that all actions are neutral. If all actions truly are neutral, how do we decide how to treat each other and ourselves? Of course I mean this aside from religious rulings – I'm talking about personal and cultural morality now. I don't need a book or a preacher to tell me what I think is right or wrong, but I do need *some* (internalized) system to help me make decisions.
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 07:48:01 PM
To the bolded, oh no! I don't feel attacked at all! I have thoroughly enjoyed discussing this with you, and thought that everything that you've said has been really smart and thought provoking. You have no idea how starved I am for conversations /debates about things like this.
Great, I get a horrible feeling sometimes that I may have cornered an opponent into a reluctant argument.
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 07:48:01 PM
You make some great points about the term "moral" but I guess my question is – if we remove the term "moral" – what do we use in its place?
My preference would be "personal values". It makes it clear that these are your's and apply to you only.
With an adherence to morals it is all to easy to be judgmental of others.
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 07:48:01 PM
I think it's human nature to judge actions as being "right" or "wrong"
hehehe, "right" and "wrong" are theistic terms lol
There is no such thing as objective right and objective wrong.
Quote from: Ali on January 04, 2012, 07:48:01 PM
But aside from the law, I guess I feel uncomfortable with the notion that all actions are neutral. If all actions truly are neutral, how do we decide how to treat each other and ourselves?
Very good question.
Being amoral doesn't mean that you are apathetic. You could consider basing your stance on well considered, reasoned logic and compassion. You could realise that lying to people builds up a reputation for yourself of not being trustworthy, this may make it difficult to get people to confide in you or to go into partnership in ventures or to rely on you for favours etc.
If you value community as being important then you could realise that the society that you live in is a community to which you belong. Your intelligence could make you come to the realisation that certain rules (laws) of society are necessary for a functioning society, you could also realise that as part of a community it is important act above the law and take on additional optional rules (personal values) to treat other members with respect, that your own actions may influence or inspire other community members to act the same way. It isn't too hard to realise that an inclusive society where each person respects each other, and the diversity that comes with having many respected individuals is a beneficial state of society. The golden rule is a perfect personal value to adopt, to help guide you in your endeavors to be a respected member of society.