|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: -Moral Standard In All of Humanity- | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
kuresu writes: I admire your efforts. But why be content with just getting to the stars? Why not get to the very boundaries of the known universe? Why not find a communion between your inner soul and the outer limits of reality?
you know the phrase "shoot for the stars"? that kind of thing. I'm not content with getting just a Ph.D. But it's deeper than that. I can't really formulate it into words and do it justice as of now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
why do you think I made the Ph.D. comment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jar writes: Allow me to ask you some questions.
First, we may believe there is a God but we do not know that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Kuresu writes: I can't rightly say for sure. I don't know you well enough to ascertain your personality, sense of humor, hopes, dreams, and goals. why do you think I made the Ph.D. comment? Getting back on topic, however, I believe that everyone has a common inner unction of morality and ethics. There may be some abstractions, but everyone wants to protect their children, for example. Humans surely have some common characteristics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4021 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Read a statement the other day that I thought carried a lot of truth:
'Morality is the plaything of the well-fed'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6151 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
I would like to see some evidence perhaps as to why it is acceptable besides "it most certainly is", otherwise it looks as if I have stumped you.
Isn't this just what you have done? I haven't seen any evidence from you to back up morality being objective. No but really, I do believe morality is objective. But that's just my opinion, I can't back it up with anything. If you'll ever travel to another country you'll see how the concept of morality goes hand in hand with culture and it most certainly seems subjective.Still... I like to believe morality is objective just because I like to believe it is...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
True, but to deduce the more morally "right" decision is all that we can do in situations such as these. Yes, that is all we can do. Now the question posed/implied in the OP is what standard do we use to deduce the "right" decision. Do we use the New Testament? Do we use the Old Testament? Do we use the Qu'ran? Do we use the Vedas? Do we use the teachings of Buddha? Do we use the teachings of our own personal new age guru? Do we use the writings of L. Ron Hubbard? Do we use our parents who may have been influenced by any or all of these things throughout their lifetime? Do we use our middle school peers? So, the real question is what moral standard should we adhere to? Not if there is one, because we can all use a "standard" to uphold. Whether it be a religious standard dictated by Moses or Jesus of Mohammed or Buddha or Zoroaster or various gods/their adherents or a more secular standard such as that proscribed by the American Constitution/The French Declaration of the Rights of Man/The UN Declaration of Human Rights/etc ad nauseum. The "deduction" of right and wrong seems mighty complicated when seen in the terms of the whole world. The deduction of right and wrong seems even more complicated when your "right" is seen through the eyes of another's "wrong." From what standard do you "deduce" this from? The one you believe in? How is yours "right" and everyone else's "wrong? Where is the logical deduction in that? To me, right and wrong seem highly emotional, not logical at all, my own rights and wrongs included. The questions that sidelined posed was meant to represent the complexity of morality and the human condition. When is murder (killing) justified? When is stealing justified? Is it murder? Is it stealing? That is where our "standards" come in and who says what is "justified"
We all know what is right and we all know what is wrong. Certain cases force us into deciding what the right and good is, it may be a struggle, but we can all make the right choice. Yes, but a struggle towards what? Towards a perfect Christian Utopia? Or a perfect Islamic Utopia? Or a perfect Hindu Utopia? Which one? We all have near universal taboos, in the general sense, meaning that murder is defined as justified killing in certain circumstances, rape is considered a crime in certain circumstances or not (it was even OK to rape your wife in the US until just very recently), child abuse is defined differently under different circumstances/cultures, incest is defined in varying terms in varying cultures, art is considered pornography in some circles. All of these crimes/"sins" have a context. We all judge the context based on where we live and how/where we were raised, but does that mean that my definition meets yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Subjective: what is better, blue or red, chocolate or vanilla Objective: What is right? What is Justice? How should one live? Why do I exist? Seems correct on the surface, but your questions mirror one another. Right="better" much of the time (as in do we allow a killer to kill more or do we kill him/her?). Is justice blue or red? Who says (some say that killing gays for fucking is justice in the name of their God)? Should I live my life in the name of chocolate or vanilla? Do I exist for either? You try to highlight the difference between subjective and objective by defining the subjective with seeming trivialities. However, both of your groups of examples qualify as subjective. Meaning that we, as humans, define ALL of the above in our very differing terms. You telling me that your God lays it all it out and saying that your morality is objective based on on that point of view does not mean that your morality is objective. It means your morality is subject to the book/god/pastor/parents/friends whence you got it from. Try asking the latter group of questions in an internet survey (you know like the ones which usually ask questions like "blue or red" and "chocolate or vanilla") and see what kind of answers you get. Even if one of the respondents agrees with your worldview 100% I bet their answers will differ from yours. And someone whose worldview is completely opposite from yours might surprise you and repeat your answers verbatim. We all have differing points of view and I don't think we should sacrifice them because that is the essence of debate and growth. I do, however, think that consensus is the closest thing we have to true objectivity. And objectivity/consensus is open to change and interpretation, just like science. We should all be critically thinking about the current paradigm (objectivity). That means asking hard questions like "Would you kill your mother in order to save 1 million people?" This question doesn't mean that the asker wants you to kill your mother or even that you pit her against 1 million people, but it requires that you think outside your current box in order to come to your own conclusions about life and love and whatever. That is my take on it, tho. Think about the question and not the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I would like to see some evidence perhaps as to why it is acceptable besides "it most certainly is", otherwise it looks as if I have stumped you. Yes, but you accept "it most certainly is" as proof for your absolute Christian God given morality instead of the current consensus among humans that killing each other without reason (and reasons vary GREATLY throughout societies and history) is "wrong." It is not one or the other. It is not "My God is the giver of morality and none other." That is where the debate gets muddled. You have stumped no one but yourself.
You see, there really is a "standard" that exists. We can all see it and decide what is righteous. To deny it's existence is to deny the existence of morality altogether See my above post, but to reiterate, what standard are we using? Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Have you given up at the question? What? You asked a simple yes or no question and I answered the simple yes or no question.
I would like to see some evidence perhaps as to why it is acceptable besides "it most certainly is", otherwise it looks as if I have stumped you. Stumped? In your dreams perhaps. Read the Bible. God commands folk to go out and kill and pillage. Those that do not follow Gods commandment are punished. In that society, to not kill and steal was immoral.
You see, there really is a "standard" that exists. We can all see it and decide what is righteous. To deny it's existence is to deny the existence of morality altogether. So you continue to assert even when presented with evidence that refutes your position. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ah the old shell game again. Why do you folk just regurgitate the Chick Tract arguments without thinking them through?
Can I get independent confirmation of how my parents felt about me? Can I get independent confirmation of your existence? Can I even get someone who doesn't believe that you exist (for example the robot crawlers from Google that index the web) to verify the same evidence I have that you exist? Can I get independent confirmation of God's existence? Can I even get someone who doesn't believe that God exists (for example the robot crawlers from Google that index the web) to verify the existence of God? Stop and think. Don't just accept the really stupid examples that the Fundies throw out as facT. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There exists what is truly and absolutely right and we can discern what that is, ... We know that such a model or standard exists You are asserting that there is a single absolute moral standard. The evidence is that this is not so: different cultures have different standards, and different people within every culture have different standards. Evidence: gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, etc. We even have some people that think medical treatment is immoral. Conclusion: We know that such an absolute model or standard does NOT exist.
... we trust that God did not create some sort of silly and simple-minded game for humans to take part in. Why is this nonsense? Two reasons. One is the false absolutism asserted (and invalidated above), the other is an assumption that what you want to be (an absolute standard) would only come from your version of what god created. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
prophyx writes: Surprised at that statement, we are dealing with objectivities here. What is right, just, how should one live, why do I exist, all of these questions were covered by Socrates. Did Socrates come to any definitive and absolute conclusions concerning those questions? Has anyone since? Does this not show that such questions reveal the subjective nature of any conclusions based upon such questions? But you are right, I should have been more definitive in my reply. Without the context of that quote, it would not make as much sense as it should. Lets try using the term murder instead of music. On July 20, 1944, an attempt was made on Hitler's life. Hitler's assasination (=murder) would have been good to the Allies, bad to the Nazis, and indifferent to Franco. Therefore proscriptions against murder are not an absolute that exist somewhere "out there" independent of the individual's viewpoint. Therefore morality is subjective. Care to try this game with any other form of absolute morality you may come up with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
anglagard writes: Hitler's assasination (=murder) would have been good to the Allies, bad to the Nazis, and indifferent to Franco. Hitler's death, natural or artificially produced, would benefit some, and annoy some. And it isn't really the benefit to the Allies that would have made it moral, right? It would have been the benefit to innocent citizens who were his victims. Similarly, just because Hitler's death was beneficial, would not mean it was moral. If a stray man walked over to Hitler and shot him just for fun with no idea who he was, accidental benefits would not equal moral. Morality is entirely subjective to the case at hand. Nevertheless, I think the morality of a situation is determined on some type of scale. The rpobelm with these threads is that folks want to name a moral. Murder, theft, lying, etc. are not moral of immoral, they are relative. That is what your analogy shows. Not to beat a dead horse, but I see a scale called 'love of neighbor' and theft, murder, etc, sliding up and down the scale. But remember, love of God was the first commandment. Tell an ancient Hebrew, or a modern Christian/Muslim, 'God said' and murder goes to the top of the moral to do list. Anyway...I have a game to play. How do we know who is attractive? Is that based on a standard (I know the ancients had standards of beauty) or is that subjective?Anyone can tell you, beauty is completely subjective. It's in the eye of the beholder, right? Apparently not so. A recent study has shown that infants recognize and draw towards more attractive faces. Obviously this study is flawed. The scientists themselves must be biased to determine who is attractive in the first place, right? How do they possibly know that the baby is choosing the 'hottie' without a standard for beauty? How can they possibly pick a 'beautiful' face for the line-up without revealing their own bias. Is there a standard for beauty?Or...is it all subjective and changing with a culture? Hm. Seems pretty obvious. The standard of beauty changes, therefore flawed study. On the other hand, there might be a standard of some basic requirements like regularity of feature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Jar writes: Independent of what? Ah the old shell game again. Why do you folk just regurgitate the Chick Tract arguments without thinking them through?Phat writes: Who specifically is "you folk"? Do you see no individuality in the context of what I say versus what you have read from others? Chick Tracts are not a primary source of reference for me. Can I get independent confirmation of how my parents felt about me?Phat writes: Yes. You could ask people who knew your Parents. The question focuses on the interaction between you and your parents, however...and I doubt that observers would have as good of a grasp as you yourself would. Can I get independent confirmation of your existence?Phat writes: Most certainly...you could ask those who had met me to confirm the proof of my existence. Unless, of course, you were talking to a metaphysical philosopher who could logically prove that I was an illusion! Can I even get someone who doesn't believe that you exist (for example the robot crawlers from Google that index the web) to verify the same evidence I have that you exist?Phat writes: Can I get independent confirmation of God's existence? It has been my experience that the Robot crawlers don't have access to every single word that I have said on the Forum...although I could be wrong. Additionally, you have evidence of my existence through the Java Chat and also there is this matter known as context!
Edited by Phat, : clarification Edited by Phat, : quote box
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024