Morality Decreasing With Time?

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.

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?

But this is just meaningless nonsense. 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.) 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. What hasn't ever changed? That's 100% false anda misrepresentation of the content of my post. 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:

---

Easy enough to amend. Statement redacted to read: There are no absolutes except this one.

---

and

quote:

---

If I decide to punish him, from what basis are you going to tell me I can't? What you forget about moral relativism is, it works both ways. Maybe there's no objective basis to punish a criminal, but there's also no objective basis to conclude that it's wrong to punish a criminal without an objective basis for doing so.

​

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.

---

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. Right about what?

My point is that you cannot claim legitimacy for the bible with special pleading to intellectual authority.

You might want to google "variable speed of light theory"Edited by fallacycop, : fix quote box

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.

Agreed. Perhaps you intended to reply to Nemesis Juggernault instead of me?

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? 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? 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

quote:

---

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.

---

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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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

You've yet to establish either that there IS a God or that such an entity bears any relation to your concept of it! Which surely is a argument against absolute morality? 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?

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. You've completely misunderstood, then, what sort of absolutes are under discussion. 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. 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? 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?) 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.

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

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

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

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. 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. 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.