|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality Decreasing With Time? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
jar writes: Loving our neighbor is the only way we can love God. There is nothing we can do for God, that is the whole point of the Sheep and Goat parable. There are certainly other commandments about keeping the sabbath etc., but upon question, Jesus said loving thy neighbor was the most important. I guess this is where we agree to agree, and for me,case closed. It has been an insightful thread, for me. I get the funny feeling that it is old hat for you, and I mean that as a compliment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The mere fact that you do not like the consequences (as you see them) of non absolute morality does not necessarily mean that morality must therefore contain absolutes.
It may just mean that the majority of people do not subscribe to the same moral code that you consider to be absolute. Will you at least agree that? I would fundamentally disagree with you as regards the consequences of non absolute morality anyway. My own view is that there are areas of common morality to all humanity and that these are based on our common evolutionary ancestry and ability to empathise. The specifics are dictated by culture and individuality but that far from means we are all going to go off and kill and rape each other. Quite the opposite. All human cultures should in my view be able to come up with a core of laws based on this common morality. The evidence suggests that, even with the notable exceptions, the majority of people are quite willing to treat each other with respect and dignity. I still have not had an answer from any biblical moral absolutist as to how I can find many of Gods actions in the bible highly immoral. Where did I get this sense of morality from if it is evidently not from God or the bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You couldn't 'know' anything without them. We've all heard of the law of non-contradiction, that two things of opposite meaning can't both be right. But that's really only half of it. In order to even understand something means that we recognize it under absolute terms. But this is just meaningless nonsense.
If you claimed that you could be on the continent of Africa and the continent of Australia at the same time, people would either laugh at you or think you were deranged to make such a claim. What does that have to do with anything? Australia and Africa aren't universal absolutes; they're arbitrary names given to two different continents. (Of course, if you were standing inside the Nairobi embassy in Sidney, you would be in both Africa and Australia at the same time.)
But you can't hang up your argument on "may." May or may not was what I said, actually. And, yes, I can refute your argument by showing that what you claim is known, actually isn't.
The mere fact that it is constant and hasn't ever changed is enough to render it ineffectual. What hasn't ever changed?
But you haven't said anything other than that you've heard all of this before. That's 100% false anda misrepresentation of the content of my post.
You never gave one. Again, 100% false. My post contained two major arguments, both of which you've now claimed don't exist. But here they are, for your edification:
quote: and
quote: It's the second, especially, that you've given no meaningful reply to. You've just now tried to say that I didn't actuallly write that material, but that's an obvious fabrication. The message has not been edited or redacted in any way.
Both answers may not be cogent, but only one of us has the possibility of being right. Right about what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
anastasia writes: The impact the Bible has had on societies and individuals says that many people, even very intelligent people, continue to find something more than fairy tale about it. My point is that you cannot claim legitimacy for the bible with special pleading to intellectual authority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
But this about morality, not physical constants. I only mention to show that in the known universe, absolutes exist.
You might want to google "variable speed of light theory" Edited by fallacycop, : fix quote box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why should the possibility or otherwise of absolutes in one area necessarily mean that there are absolutes in another?
If there are absolute values for physical constants does that mean that consciousness is absolute? Does it mean human emotions are absolute? Does it mean that colours are absolutes? I fail to see how the constancy of the speed of light would lead to absolute morality or the non-constancy lead to non-absolute morality. The two have nothing to do with each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I fail to see how the constancy of the speed of light would lead to absolute morality or the non-constancy lead to non-absolute morality.
Agreed. Perhaps you intended to reply to Nemesis Juggernault instead of me?
The two have nothing to do with each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
My own view is that there are areas of common morality to all humanity and that these are based on our common evolutionary ancestry and ability to empathise. If you are prepared to make such a statement, then you are going to have to explain the mechanisms in order to give your statement some substance. Some people tell me that love is just the bi-product of a biochemical reaction. For instance, if placed in in a CAT-scan and showed you pictures of loved one's, we, the viewers, would likely notice notice all this brain activity. One of two conclusions can be drawn from it. Either those changes in the brain is love, or they are the physical manifestations of what happens when we feel love. Does that make sense? In other words, do morals derive from the brain or are those feelings expressed, physically, by the brain?
The specifics are dictated by culture and individuality but that far from means we are all going to go off and kill and rape each other. Every culture has a belief that unjust killings, i.e., murder, is just that-- murder. What they may disagree on is what constitutes murder. How could a belief, something not tangible, be transmitted through a genetic line?
I still have not had an answer from any biblical moral absolutist as to how I can find many of Gods actions in the bible highly immoral. Where did I get this sense of morality from if it is evidently not from God or the bible? First I have to ask why its evidently not from God. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: But this is just meaningless nonsense. According to your views, everything is meaningless and only we assign our own meaning. If its meaningless to you, it still may be meaningful to me. In any case, what stumbles you? What wasn't clear?
Australia and Africa aren't universal absolutes; they're arbitrary names given to two different continents. The names may be arbitrary, but the plot is not. Are you telling me that there aren't really two different large pieces of land separated by vast oceans? Whether its called Australia or Kangarooland is the arbitrary part. The fact that they exist coupled with the fact that you can't be physically present on both simultaneously elucidates the fact that we absolutely can't get around that. As to why I mentioned it I thought I was clear. I just wanted to identify what an absolute was.
(Of course, if you were standing inside the Nairobi embassy in Sidney, you would be in both Africa and Australia at the same time.) It is impossible for you to be both on the continent of Africa and Australia at the same time. You may be on designated Australian land while in Nairobi, but you can't occupy both continents at the same time. There is a fundamental difference.
May or may not was what I said, actually. And, yes, I can refute your argument by showing that what you claim is known, actually isn't. Then nothing is known is which is my whole point. It sounds as if you are taking a nihilist position. If truth doesn't actually exist, then it renders its own argument null and void. That's quite a paradox as the cogency of the argument is seriously questioned. Consider the philosopher who spends countless hours philosophizing whether or not the universe has meaning. He pours out his mind on the meaninglessness of it all. But the mere fact that he is avidly pursuing meaninglessness is contrary to the point of his meaningful endeavor. Is it not? It shouldn’t take long to figure out that he prefers a meaningless existence and pursues it because he wants it to be so, rather than it is. He obviously finds comfort in the banality of nothingness so he can exonerate his actions. The post-modernist may see pious views as being intolerant. Interestingly, when expressing views on absolutes we often get the chance to some of that ”tolerance’ in action. They might see my view as too rigid and finite and are essentially repulsed by it. But if there is no right or wrong, what is that supposed to mean to me when they to judge my beliefs, much less, get angry with them? If there is no truth then there can be no basis for criticizing anything.
What hasn't ever changed? Even if all things were ephemeral and temporal, either in form or capacity, the fact that if things change, always, would still be an absolute phenomenon. There's no way you can get around the principle.
My post contained two major arguments, both of which you've now claimed don't exist. But here they are, for your edification:
quote: and
quote: Get it? I don't have to conclude that a criminal did something wrong in order to justify punishing him for it. I (or rather, society) simply needs to determine (democratically, perhaps, or by another method) what we think deserves punishment and what doesn't. You don't have to conclude that a criminal did something wrong in order to punish him? Then what basis do you have to punish him? You say, by a democratic society. That's the law, which stems from a moral framework. How does the deciding of a persons fate by more than one person affect absolutism?
It's the second, especially, that you've given no meaningful reply to. You've just now tried to say that I didn't actuallly write that material, but that's an obvious fabrication. The message has not been edited or redacted in any way. You still aren't giving me anything to go by, which is why I said it to begin with. What profound thing am I supposed to extract from this? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fix quote box "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
NJ writes: First I have to ask why its evidently not from God. You've yet to establish either that there IS a God or that such an entity bears any relation to your concept of it!
NJ writes: Every culture has a belief that unjust killings, i.e., murder, is just that-- murder. What they may disagree on is what constitutes murder. Which surely is a argument against absolute morality?
NJ writes: How could a belief, something not tangible, be transmitted through a genetic line? Humans ARE able to communicate with each other. This raises an interesting question. If God is the source of "absolute morality", why does he use a human artifact like a book to spread his message if he can beam innate morality directly into our heads? If you had never come into contact with Christianity, from where would your moral outlook have come?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What wasn't clear? The relevance of your statements to the topic at hand. I literally can't for the life of me understand how your statements contitute a response to anything I've written. If you find them personally meaningful, that's great, but you need to understand that you've communicated absolutely nothing sensical to me.
As to why I mentioned it I thought I was clear. I just wanted to identify what an absolute was. You've completely misunderstood, then, what sort of absolutes are under discussion.
It is impossible for you to be both on the continent of Africa and Australia at the same time. Arbitrary names for arbitrary land masses - "land mass" itself being an arbitrary designation for a certain collection of atoms. (The collection itself also being arbitrary.) Nothing absolute here. Aliens would have their own terms for the land masses, or they might not even percieve the relevance of masses on a planet. We're talking about absolutes - things that are the same no matter who or where you are. That's not the case in your example.
It sounds as if you are taking a nihilist position. If truth doesn't actually exist, then it renders its own argument null and void. And since I didn't say any of that, it sounds like you're misrepresenting my arguments again. How many times do I have to ask you to stop doing that?
You don't have to conclude that a criminal did something wrong in order to punish him? Then what basis do you have to punish him? You say, by a democratic society. Our desire to do so, as I already told you. What's stopping us? (And what's stopping you from understanding and addressing this amazingly simple point?)
What profound thing am I supposed to extract from this? That moral relativism, contrary to your assertion, doesn't mandate that criminals go unpunished. There's no reason not to punish criminals under moral relativism, because there's no reason, aside from will, not to do anything at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NJ writes: NJ writes:How could a belief, something not tangible, be transmitted through a genetic line? Rick writes: Humans ARE able to communicate with each other. Until recent centuries the majority of the cultures, tribes and nations of earth were not in communication with one another, yet for the most part some fundamental moralities and culture similarities were somewhat universal, such as murder, male leadership role, family structure, man/woman family role, et al. So communication is not the answer to the phenomenon of the decline of morality. The Bible is an early source of the phenomenon of a common morality in human cultures. The fact that Biblical prophets prophesied a decrease in morality in the latter days when other corroborating prophecies are being fulfilled is significant so far as the thread title and OP goes. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So communication is not the answer to the phenomenon of the decline of morality. But so far no one has shown any examples of declining morality. In fact the only examples presented so far show that morality is increasing. During Old Testament times slavery was moral. Today it is seen as immoral. During New Testament times, stoning people was moral. Today it is considered immoral. During the Age of Exploration it was considered moral to kill folk to save their souls. Today that is considered immoral. During the period of Manifest Destiny it was considered moral for the United States to simply take other nations territory by conquest. Today it is considered immoral. Today depriving US Citizens of their basic human rights is considered moral by many Christians. Hopefully in the future they will realize how immoral they are. Every indicator is that morality is increasing, not decreasing. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Don't you think that examples of good moral behaviour have an effect?
Do you think your children do as you say or as they see you do? Don't you think they learn good habits from you as well as bad? So, when one society abolishes slavery, don't you think that has a good effect on other societies? When one society abandons aggressive war, don't you think that has a good effect on other societies? When one society ends discrimination based on colour, creed, sexual orientation, don't you think that has a good effect on other societies? It seems to me that the ones having a bad effect are those who cling blindly to the idea that we're bad and we can only get worse. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In other words, do morals derive from the brain or are those feelings expressed, physically, by the brain?
Both. Are you suggesting the two are mutually exclusive? If I had a full scientific explanation for the brain and it's internal workings as related to emotion, cognition and morality I would be writing my nobel prize winning thesis rather than writing posts here.Research in evolutionary psychology suggests that all human cultures have some broad moral concepts in common. The same (and other psychological) research also suggests that the ability to empathise is key to such concepts and that individuals who have lost elements of this ability through brain damage or other abnormalities seriously struggle to function in society. I can try and dig out these general sourcesif interested. Every culture has a belief that unjust killings, i.e., murder, is just that-- murder. What they may disagree on is what constitutes murder. How could a belief, something not tangible, be transmitted through a genetic line? I never claimed that it was genetic!! Take a new born child from one culture and place them in another and it would be the general morality of the second that the child would most likely display. The only genetic component might potentially be predisposition to aggression and other such similar individual propensities which would have applied regardless of the culture the subject finds themselves in.The cultural attitudes and means of "inheritance" are arguably memetic but that is another conversation altogether. First I have to ask why its evidently not from God Well it would suggest that God is immoral in terms of his own absolute moral code!! If you agree that God is indeed immoral then yes, I also agree, it could come from God.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024