Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's More Moral?
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 1 of 125 (391127)
03-23-2007 4:29 PM


Because the recent topic 'Atheism Examined' seems to be veering into yet another 'who's more moral' debate, rather than a foray into the definition of atheism, I am proposing that the conversation be moved to a new thread.
I don't know how much personal lead-in is required here. But over-all the 'atheist' side was defending itself as equally moral, and there is now a smattering of 'more moral' coming up as well, from both sides?
Maybe we could just list some of the things which both parties feel are the common ground items, and the areas of disagreement. What are the different morals of the two groups, if any?
For myself the main difference is that I include love of God in my morality, which governs things like church attendance, blasphemy, attachment to creation and creatures, fasting and abstinance, and the requirements of the internal life via prayer. To me, if I lapsed in these areas, I would be 'less moral' than I could be, but not 'more moral' than a person without these constraints.
For others, love of others is key and/or sole basis of moral objectives. What I perceive as the main problem in 'religious morality' is that love of God has often surpassed love of neighbor. The Inquisition would be an example of so much 'loyalty' to God, that others were harmed. This seems to be an hypocrisy, as loving others should spring from loving God, in Christendom at least.
Also, since no one seems to believe in any 'real' or true morality, what is this yardstick which is used to determine whether another is weak or strong? Aren't we just saying stagnate or modern? Or are we talking about who has more pure motives?
Edited by anastasia, : title change
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2007 12:18 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-24-2007 2:15 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 5 by mick, posted 03-24-2007 5:44 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 6 of 125 (391396)
03-24-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
03-24-2007 2:15 PM


Ringo writes:
To me, morality is "purer" if you own it, if it's a part of you. A morality that is injected/imparted/imposed by an external force is more like an invading pathogen.
Thanks for the grammar correction there Ringo. I let that one slide, since I have hang-ups about pile-on edits.
If I get your meaning right, I agree with you. There is a time when we all have to make any morality our own. Until that time it is just rules and regulations. There is nothing moral about driving slowly to avoid police, but rather, 'owning' yourself and your behaviour should naturally make you conscientious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-24-2007 2:15 PM ringo has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 8 of 125 (391402)
03-24-2007 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mick
03-24-2007 5:44 PM


Re: anastasia, what is morality?
mick writes:
Either you or I are confused about what "morality" means.
Or, morality has different meanings for different people.
It is not at all clear to me why adherence to a requirement of one's God or church is considered to be a moral responsibility. If you are required to fast or be abstinent by your church's teachings, why is it necessarily a moral requirement? What is moral about fasting, or going to church? For that matter, if God tells you to do something, why is it then moral for you to do it? Are you not simply following a command or requirement? You are not necessarily engaged in any moral reasoning whatsoever.
Do you want the long version first, or the short?
First off, if I don't follow the commands of the church, I feel guilty. This is because at one time in my life I had to use some reasoning to discover if these rules were worthy of my respect, useful, efficacious. Eventually, they became more than rules, and a part of what I believe is 'good'.
This is like what I posted above to Ringo. The rules of the church can be no more than traffic rules that people break. I may ask just as well what is 'moral' about obeying any laws. The answer is that laws are intended to benefit society. There is nothing moral about following them without believing them. That is just being scared.
The long answer I will actually shorten. It has to do with; 'so what's so good about going to church anyway?' (or fasting, etc.) All of these things are forms of prayer, or actions intended to bring down God's help for humanity. This is most likely not something you will buy into, but at least maybe you will understand how it is that I ould feel that these things were moral. I do believe they are rules that have benefits.
Please could you tell us what your definition of morality is, and how it encompasses what seem to me to be amoral concerns such as church attendance?
The most basic definition is that moral behaviour is following of one's conscience. This does not work by itself, since we have as a society already imposed morals comprised from collective experience. The greatest common denominator in morality, amoung people in all walks of life, is this same care for others that you have mentioned. Since a conscience is an individual thing which must be honed, we don't all leap to the 'love' conclusion right away. This was a conclusion that took thousands of years to perfect on a world-wide level of imput. It is still not finished in practice.
However, love of others is not the only moral, necessarily. One can also love himself, creation, and/or God. We can not require of others that they also love themselves or God, but we are coming to understand that without creation we can't 'love' at all. Preservation is vital. The only reason why I brought that up is because it can illustrate a point.
I love nature, I assume you do as well. I also assume neither of us run a no-kill shelter in our back yards. I Do believe that those who do, would feel like a bad person if they didn't do it. Their conscience has put this burden on them as part of what they are 'meant' to do in this life. We are all individuals. There are things that only affect me, like efficient use of time, where I feel 'guilt' when I don't use my time wisely. There are family situations that are unique to all of us, and our societal system can't decide what is best for every person. It is very simply the idea that because I feel going to church is something which makes me better as a person, as well as has benefits to society, that I certainly consider myself to be breaking my own code if I fail.
When it comes down to it, we can't be much use to others without respecting and upholding our own standards. If I believe in God, this should make me love others, and this love of others should also bring blessings from God. There is no 'amoral' in life. All of our actions should be the best possble given our capabilites. It is entirely possible IMO to make every single act of the day moral.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mick, posted 03-24-2007 5:44 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mick, posted 03-25-2007 4:30 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 42 by Larni, posted 03-25-2007 8:28 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 10 of 125 (391406)
03-24-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by kuresu
03-24-2007 10:52 PM


kuresu writes:
isn't your survival a compelling enough of a reason to be good?
It would be, in a perfect world where all we had are good choices to make. But in reality, there are many situations where being good can cause a person to die. If all of us were good all of the time society would improve, sure. It would help us all to survive in the long run. Again, in reality, a moral person must see the forest and not the trees. In other words, they need to keep going in the right direction even when it would have 'bad' results. Most of us only see one tree at a time and we concentrate on knocking that down with whatever tools we have, bad or good. I am sure that all of us, being imperfect, are quite aware that this mysterious thing called 'surival' is not there for us in a bad moment.
instead of relying on arguments of authority, how about actually proving your case?
Just slow down. I don't even know that there was a case. Rob quoted something from Lewis since it just so happened to have a similar wording as Ringo had used. So far he has given a few sentences of input in a thread, not a case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 10:52 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 11:06 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 13 by tudwell, posted 03-24-2007 11:10 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 16 of 125 (391413)
03-24-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by kuresu
03-24-2007 11:13 PM


kuresu writes:
i ask again, isn't survival a compelling enough reason to be good?
And I tell you again, you and tudwell.
Survival IS a compelling enough reason to be good, and it makes no difference of we talk family, group, individual, or whatever level.
The problem is, survival for anyone doesn't depend on only good choices.
If you change your goal to survival, rather than the standard of human rights and brotherly love, you change ALL of your other parameters.
It is a catch 22. Survival of your family means to some, killing off competition. As we developed a bigger community and world, we learned that survival can still be accomplished by treating the competition well.
This in turn depends on if the competition is willing to be an apprentice.
If not, then 'survive' still equals 'destroy', and thus we see that survival is not the be all and end all of morality.
The only other option is to allow for your own destruction in hopes that it will benefit another. This is more or less the reasoning behind suicide bombs. It is not something that we generally consider as moral, whether it be individual or group suicide. You could ask how we all feel about martyrdom.
Does a suicide of objection get folks attention? Sure. A mass suicide would get more attention. This in turn could help others to learn a lesson, and thus to 'survive' better in future. There is no guarantee.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 11:13 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by tudwell, posted 03-24-2007 11:31 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 11:38 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 19 of 125 (391420)
03-24-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kuresu
03-24-2007 11:06 PM


kuresu writes:
what do you mean by survival, though? Personal survival? What of survival of the family or group? Which is more important for humans? I'd say the latter. Your death, should it help the survival of your group, would be a good act, then.
oh, and he quoted Nielson, not Lewis (for a change).
Ok, I rescind what I said. Survival is the ultimate goal of morality, be it eternal survival or of a species. If it is personal survival, nada. There you have duality of purpose, as all of us are looking first to our own needs. And, when it comes to personal survival, there are plenty of compelling reasons to be 'bad'.
So, you were right, it depends on the 'level' we are looking at. This is where my bias is, however. In Christian morality we have the best of both worlds in a way. We get to do 'good' for society, and still get the personal reward. This goes back to the purer motives thing.
Oh, and look closely...you will see the Lewis.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 11:06 PM kuresu has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 21 of 125 (391422)
03-24-2007 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by kuresu
03-24-2007 11:38 PM


kuresu writes:
in other words, he is stating that in a naturalist framework, good = survival. if good = moral, then moral = what leads to your survival.
If good = survival, then this COULD mean that some things which we consider immoral now will change as the survival needs change.
By way of an hypothesis; if the survival of the entire human race came down to the extermination of one group or sub-sect, would you consider it moral to destroy them? Or what if it was an alien colony out to get us?
This is essentially the same as asking what you would do if a robber came to your house and threatened your family. Turn the other cheek?
And how do we rationalize this?
On the one hand we have proof that cooperation is best.
On the other, we will always have spots where we just can't use it and still survive.
So which is ultimately more important?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2007 11:38 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 03-25-2007 12:28 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 26 of 125 (391427)
03-25-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by anglagard
03-25-2007 12:06 AM


Re: Should be in humor thread
deleted
Edited by anastasia, : don't wish to be the one immortalizing angla's senility

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 03-25-2007 12:06 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by anglagard, posted 03-25-2007 12:16 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 29 of 125 (391430)
03-25-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by anglagard
03-25-2007 12:16 AM


Re: Should be in humor thread
anglagard writes:
Check the post time, I do try to be self-correcting
Yes, I deleted. That one actually took two gos before it went through, so I should have obeyed the computer God.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by anglagard, posted 03-25-2007 12:16 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 32 of 125 (391434)
03-25-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by tudwell
03-25-2007 12:22 AM


tudwell writes:
We already did - in fact, you did. Good is survival.
So Utilitarianism is doing that which begets survival for the most people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by tudwell, posted 03-25-2007 12:22 AM tudwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by tudwell, posted 03-25-2007 12:30 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 35 of 125 (391438)
03-25-2007 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
03-25-2007 12:28 AM


Ringo writes:
There's your proof that there's no absolute morality. It's exterminate or don't exterminate on a case-by-case basis
Well it sure looks like it, but then again.
What would you tell a martyr?
They obviously believe that there is an absolute in turning the other cheek. Even a person who refuses to lie to save themselves does this.
But they will go back on this absolute when it comes to saving the lives of others by lying. So, you get back to the 'greatest amount of good' for the most people thing.
And then you still have that issue of genocidal maniacs who think they are doing just that. Creating a better world for the majority. What is the problem here anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 03-25-2007 12:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 03-25-2007 12:54 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 37 of 125 (391442)
03-25-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
03-25-2007 12:28 AM


Ringo writes:
There's your proof that there's no absolute morality
I gave that up long ago. While there may be no absolute moral, there can be an absolute morality. This is precisely, doing the best we can at every moment given what we know now, and I do still believe that there are always better or even perfect things which we may attain to some day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 03-25-2007 12:28 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by kuresu, posted 03-25-2007 1:00 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 03-28-2007 4:38 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 39 of 125 (391445)
03-25-2007 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ringo
03-25-2007 12:54 AM


Ribgo writes:
The collective morality frowns on both.
In theory, a Utilitarian principle of gaining the most good for the most people would possibly result in some genocides that are not frowned upon. The reason they are so far is because of the innocence of the victims. Now, it is possible to distort things to the point that the innocent look guilty, or even to the point that we say 'they are using our resources, and therefore guilty of something'. When you start viewing people this way, rather than all as equal, that is the problem. But for the pure survival of the species, there could be times when we would have to view each other this way.
Ah, I still feel like I am distracted and missing something. Perhaps later I will try to head this puppy back to where I meant it to go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 03-25-2007 12:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 03-25-2007 1:22 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 48 of 125 (391542)
03-25-2007 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
03-25-2007 12:06 PM


Re: Topic : Contrast Morality
Phat writes:
The main focus of this topic should be to contrast the morality from a faith perspective and a pragmatic perspective.
What caught my interest in the other thread was the conversation between C. Scientist and Stile.
Stile said something, and I paraphrase; those who have a God-based morality are leaving their morals to 'chance'. I didn't really understand this even after responding to him.
Brian also has a clear view that theists are less moral because of their motives...avoiding hell.
I had hoped that this be an extension of those thoughts but in the appropriate venue. Even a competition if need be. It is just that dirty competitions in the wrong threads are bad.
My moral 'system' allows for atheists to be equally moral. There is no issue as far as I am concerned. It was just interesting that perspectives seemed to change after some talk. At first, it seemed the atheists were on the defensive, and now, well, we are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 03-25-2007 12:06 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Stile, posted 03-28-2007 6:49 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 49 of 125 (391544)
03-25-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Larni
03-25-2007 8:28 AM


Re: anastasia, what is morality?
Larni writes:
So, morality is learnt!
Uh, uh. Don't think you will catch me contradicting myself. If I come to a glitch in my thought process, I will be the first one to admit to it. I did that last night when I went back on my comments to Kuresu.
If you go back to check the last post I had made in the other morality thread, I was specific.
Moral codes are learned, morality is not. I am still working on how this fits in with 'intelligence' as it seems that a big part of morality is just a not-so-common sense that we should be able to figure out just from intelligence.
At any rate, since we don't have all the answers as an individual in isolation, we end up with these codes that are given to us from society and from religions. It is my opnion that they are not different one from another but that they work together and bounce off of each other. The point of the thread was to question which system was more reliable if you will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Larni, posted 03-25-2007 8:28 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Larni, posted 03-26-2007 6:17 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 52 by RickJB, posted 03-26-2007 7:38 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024