Who's More Moral?

Phat:Yes, that is important for those who seek to actually understand the issue regardless of the consequences for thier own ambitions. However... it matters not, when the only pragmatic perspective for morality is, in fact, one that is discounted as a faith based system.So really... how much value is there in admitting that "I think this", and "you think that"? where is level three philosophy going to get anyone? We must question our own worldview with the same scrutiny we use against our detractors whom challenge us relentlessly.And we do! As you and I admit time and time again that we too easily accepted insufficient reasoning to make our arguments, our opponents do no such thing. The phony friendships and unworthy loves are repulsing.There is no pragmatic perspective for morality apart from the transcendent. And that is what Kai Nielsen admitted to his atheistic brethren as I pointed out to Ringo in my response: http://EvC Forum: Who's More Moral? -->EvC Forum: Who's More Moral?Of course he did not endorse the view that morality is God given, but in confessing it's incoherence with the alternative philosophical frameworks, he implicitely acknowledges such a temporary surrender. (Kai Nielsen, “Why Should I Be Moral?,” American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (January 1984), 90.)Kant's catagorical imperitive has failed. That is old news for those doing their homework... And that is what led to Existentialism. But I digress...This confidence, that apart from God, we can find this Unity in Diversity better known as, 'human dignity' and 'goodness' to bring into balance our natural desire to be free from those very boundaries... is maddening. How can we be Godly without God, unless we are willing to define ourselves as God? There is no other thing to call it than Godliness, since that is it's origin. That is real history.Iris Murdoch wrote about this very thing in her critique of Kant's Groundwork of Ethics: (Murdoch / 1970 / The Sovereignty of Good)But that does not stop them? No! The existential desire for goodness (the root word of goodness being God) is so strong and powerful, that they intuitevely know, that it is even more natural than the desire to be autonomous. Yet when the bible says that God wrote His Law upon our hearts, they scoff and seek since the beginning of time to find another explanation.The enlightenment, renaissance, empericism, rationalism, modernism, and post-modernism have changed nothing. It still goes back to the garden of Eden when Satan challenged God's unique and post natural revelation by way of our conscious, and asked, 'Did God really say this'? (Has He revealed Himself in this way?)And so we ask after giving in to this inviting fruit, "why cannot I be God?" And so it is that Satan said, 'God knows that on the day that you eat of it, you shall become as God!'They have great faith that although no-one as yet has been able to show why we should be moral as opposed to amoral, that some great vissionary will come along with an answer so convincing, that only the clearest thinkers on earth will even dare to question his sufficiency.You see Phat? Faith is very pragmatic. It just takes into account a larger playing field that so many assure us is out of the bounds. And that is ironic since they seek freedom from the bounds of this escruciating test.Talking to them is pointless. That is why Jesus said, 'follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead'.Not because He doesn't love them enough to diefor them, but because they don't and will not.The only thing we can do is give the truth undiluted. By diluting it, we have been deceived into quietly endorsing their sophistry.That is my vision, and I know that not everyone reading this whom I have battled here falls into this catagory. but those who do, know who they are.

To some extent, everybody has faith in their own moral principles.Nobody is discounting one moral "system" or another based on faith. The basis for evaluating a moral system is performance. Does it work?If a system produces inconsistent results, it's not because of one's faith in the system or the source of the system. It's because one doesn't "own" it, as I said earlier in the thread. That seems self-contradictory. Something can only be pragnatic insofar as the bounds of the playing field are pragmatic. There might be something "transcendent" about using the state of Kansas as a football field, but there is nothing pragmatic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

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.

You won't like this, but yes.I don't say that their actions are good. At least not by our current standards.But I do strongly believe that, while society has the right and the duty to uphold what the collective mind feels is 'good', judgement of men will not revolve around adherence to society's laws.For instance, almost every culture since day one has had some immoral (by our standards) rules. Come on, even the Jewish people had rules that would be immoral to us. They were still the chosen people.And my question stands unanswered. If there is nothing real about morality, how can we even judge another? Ah, maybe you were not around for all of that. Exactly. This is why we throw people in jail no matter if they 'felt' ok with themselves while robbing their neighbors. Maybe to them it was justified. I make no pretenses about the fact that I leave judgement up to the Discerner of Hearts. All we have are rules to protect society. This is a main reason why I DO believe that there must be an individual reckoning and account for our actions. At least, if there in after-life. Otherwise, we are all doing whatever we can get away with, dying, and reincarnating to the same stupidity. Either that, or only living once.We live in a mind that recognizes its mortality. We also act as if immortal. This proves nothing per se, any more than the argument 'men are building altars, therefore God must exist'.Still, for a philosophy of life to have results, it must give some purpose to what we already know we have to deal with as humans. Whether our brains are chemical labs and purely transient, or whether there is really a meaning to what we feel, our morality needs to be useful and not only go with what we know now, but with what we feel now.In other words, there may be no meaning whatsoever to life, but to be successful at living you have to 'make up' some meaning. Well, it is not immoral to buy a small car, or to go to church to see friends. I am not sure what the point is here. In all honesty, isn't it the person's conscience which does tell them they are being a hypocrite or justifying themselves?Maybe you feel that I am saying we should leave morality up to the individual. I am not. We need laws just because you can't trust other people to follow their consciences. You also can't trust that their conscience is developed. I picture conscience like a muscle, it needs use to grow. Before I told you that just because a person follows rules , they are not necessarily moral. Now you are saying that just because a person follows their conscience they are not always moral. Just bear in mind that I am only thinking about God's perspective, not a perspective where we are the judges. Well, just let's say I've had time to think about it. Nope. You can assume however that I see it as a self-indulgent practice to believe you can invalidate a belief in prayer, which is essentially invalidating the Christian God, by quoting a Harvard study. Very ambitious of you. Do you have any idea how many of these studies have been done?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Bah! Nearly got you .I would be interested to here what you think is the difference between morality and moral codes.

And the difference between the two is....?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Of course the two could be used interchangably, but when I say it I mean.Moral code; a code of conduct agreed upon by a group or devised by an individual.Morality; the ability to, as Ringo says, 'own ourselves' and to live by following the consience above and beyond the dictates of any code.

I don't know Ringo... I have gone round and round in my own mind, "Should I even respond"?At some point you just have to let go...I have pages worth of response in mind to put these shallow assumptions of yours to rest. I've spent the last two days thinking about it off and on.But at the moment I just returned from Reno, and I have three sick children to attend to...It'll simply have to wait... but I can't!Suffice it to say for now, you take for granted so much in terms of the moral assumptions we expect, and the foundations for what goodness you enjoy and benefit from today.The 3 years of active life that represent the ministry of Jesus, corrosponded to a shift in civilization so profound, that there is no peer in History.And you ask for performance...It is maddening!He provided, and He owned.That's the theme. I have much more to expound upon it soon.

the shift in civilization took much, much longer. and I'll do you one better. The French Revolution (all 25ish years of it) more quickly affected the society of Europe than did Jesus's ministry affect the roman empire.Heck, you could argue that a single terrorist attack more thoroughly changed the US in a single day than jesus' affect on civilization.and I wouldn't call his affect on civilization "so profound". just what change did he affect?

I didn't say anything about somebody who may or may not have existed once upon a time.Any pragmatic demonstration would have to be by the troops on the ground today. If some followers of an ancient sect happen to have a sense of morality, that could be taken into consideration.Morality depends on who owns it now, not where it came from.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You need to take Rob's comments in context, and for what they're worth. Otherwise you could argue endlessly about the single most influential event/person in history.How long do you think it took before the 'shift' took place?How long do you think the French Revolution was in the works before this 25 year period?Can you compare the numbers in Europe during the Revolution to the numbers of early Christians in Rome and elsewhere? You could also wonder how long this effect will reverberate. The one which you say took much, much longer (than something) to effect?

I think I agree with the distinction you're making.A moral code is (usually) a collective thing, related to a social contract. Individual morality will sometimes be at odds with the local code.That's when it's important to really understand one's own morality. What is "mine" and what is "ours"? And what do I do when "we" try to usurp what is "mine"?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't have the time I once did to play this tit for tat (well, I am not willing to give it at the expense of my other responsibilities anyway). So you guys take you shots. I just can't respond to it all. You've no intention that I see of giving any of it the consideration it deserves.Same for you Kuresu... There are many skeptics (unbelievers) who know better(see Lecky quote below). You forget where the moral fortitude of many of these historical moments like the French Revolution originated. That is, in such a fashion as to give the men who fought for them, the fortitude and inner strength to die and suffer for ideals held in high regard... even by you. Ideals that had been perverted by men who saw their relgion as a tool. Not intrinsically real, but only as a means to an end for power.And Ironically, when someone like myself actually believes they are realities, you scoff with the heckling of cynicism and sarcasm.And I assume you think that imposing power is 'wrong' and infringes upon real and inaliable rights. If naturalism and survival are the rule, then they absolutely affirm such power grabs as good. Nature cares not for numbers or even species. Under her care, we have no right to even exist.But do the masses rebel against such tyranny and win only on contrived moral grounds they use to manipulate the masses into an insurgence?Is it all a lie on both sides?
So one dictatorship is replaced by another and so on? All on false premises?
Or are these 'wrongs' rebelled against, actually wrong intrinsically?Natualism won't give you that. You'll have to go against reality and nature herself and attempt to impose moral grounds upon an amoral universe. It is unnatural. And though men may convert under duress, the cosmos defies our isolated delusions of granduer.Can you lassoo the cosmos? You'll need a big rope...Do you want to know who is ultimately in control? Purely and theoretically it is reality (whatever it may be). Reality is God.What is reality's nature?Morality is lawful and orderly. Morality appears, only if the intrinsic reality is itself moral. Otherwise it is mere anti-reality.As Steve Turner said, '... If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky.
And when you hear, 'state of emergency'...
bomb blasts school,
youths go looting...
it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.'I don't know about you... but I see that when light is transposed for darkness, chaos and death become God! The sovereign reality becomes death and only death. Our only alternative is the opposite, that the sovereign reality is Life.There was only one person who owned such morality in the way you say must be done for it to be genuine Ringo. And His life is so intrinsically real and sovereign that death could not hold Him. (Lecky / History of European Morals / vol. II. 9)When you say it must be consistent, you are referring to His disciples such as me. And you are making a hit against the failings of us to live such ideals in fullness. What you are asking for is to see really moral beings before you will accept that that is the answer, and what will lead to peaceful co-existence sought by so many.But if that is what you are doing, then you are assuming that reality is good (Godly)!If you assume it is bad (ungodly), then these conversations are pointless since our fighting and death is what we are accidently here for.But you lie...The fact is, that the more moral we are, the more you despise us. Because the more moral we are, the more we tell the truth about morality without defference to your wishes to be told what you want to hear.A moral being will not sanction immorality. To do so would be immoral. And so an absolute moral being will always challenge the relative and wicked establishment. That is why He said He did not come to bring peace, but a sword.And that is why they crucified Him.And if someone comes along and is actually perfect, you too won't even believe that He is. YOu too crucify Him in Spirit. It matters not if it is promised that He is coming in the future, or two thousand years in the past. You don't believe that reality is made of such substance. You cannot do it...Because if you did, you'd have to give up everything for Him or consciously embrace the fact that you are anti-reality. You don't want absolute Life. You want a shadow of it... a half life. You become God's enemy.Morality... if it exists... is not only an intrinsic part of God and His very nature, but He is the only one who can own it! If we want it, we must by implication realize that we are not, and turn to the only thing that can impart it to us.He will not give us all of His power and omnisience. We can't handle it. We would use it to enslave our brothers. But He will give us more than we could gain by our own wisdom. What goodness there is in the world now is of Him. It is a reality not because you are good, but because you are created in His image. You were created to be Godly. But you don't want that!If we don't want morality, and instead choose to worship and become like the reality of our own (creating a God in our own image) then it is not our sin that condemns us (that has been paid for on the cross) but the fact that we willingly choose to reject the idea of worshipping the God of Life that condemns us.We condemn ourselves to the very thing we hate."I am the way, the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but by me."The alien has landed. The invasion and rebellion against this world of death has been won. And He is only alien to us because He is good. And though He took the blame, punishment, and responsibility for our depravity upon Himself and invites us to come and follow Him to the home we long for, and were made for, so many hide from Him and persecute the human traitors who follow.It's not about who's more moral. It's about whether or not morality is even real.Be careful what you believe...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Nobody's trying to impose anything on "the universe". Morality is only about how we govern ourselves in relationship to ourselves. No. It doesn't matter.Morality is about how we control ourselves - to the extent that we can control ourselves. What we don't control may be covered by some alien morality, but it has nothing to do with ours. Not at all. We all have possession of "morality", but only those who own their own can control it - or control themselves with it. Those of you who only rent their morality from some absentee landlord are constantly in fear of eviction, of rent hikes.... it doesn't matter how benevolent the landlord is, you can never be secure.On the other hand, those of us who own have to do our own maintenance. Well, if you claim a "superior" source for your morality, surely it's reasonable to expect some tangible result from that superiority. If you pay extra for a "luxury" apartment, don't you expect to get some luxuries?Surely there should be something you can point to other than "Rob says so." Something like that. If you claim that God guides your behaviour, then I would expect your behaviour to be better than somebody guided by, say, Gandhi. If there is no significant difference, what function does your guide serve? Morality is not a state of being - it's a method of action. It has no existence when you're standing still. Immorality is the failure to do what is moral. Our morality has nothing to do with God. It's possible that He has His own morality, but that has nothing to do with us. God's Ten Suggestions are for us to get along with each other. They don't effect our relationship with God.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC