Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
28 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,852 Year: 18,888/19,786 Month: 1,308/1,705 Week: 114/446 Day: 10/104 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who's More Moral?
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2400 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 121 of 125 (393871)
04-08-2007 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by anastasia
04-06-2007 2:36 PM


Re: For important things, show rather than accept
Well, I don't think that, for the most part, people follow a religious moral without personal conviction of its validity.

most of the time, its solely because they were taught it at some point

In other words, women in and out of religion can feel abortion is wrong based on what their body tells them.

people say this but i'm of the belief that their upbringing and society has more to do with it than some bodyly warning

Some people can stay away from things based on trust of another person's rendition of a dusty old book, but there are not too many morals that we have to just accept on faith.

tell that to the gay community, outside of a dusty ol' book, the anti-gay folks have nothing, other than the icky factor

If someone told me that I can only wash my car once a month and with distilled water, I could question that! if there is no reason behind it. I have found that most religious morals have some reason behind them that are not empirical per se, but can still be shown sufficiently to me to allow for belief in their worth.

well if you use such a weak example sure you can argue it, but you didn't grow up being taught this was the right way of washing your car all your life.
now lets see, lets take for example the whole thing about pork with jewish people, now people have been trying to figure out why they condemned the eating of pork, some wonder if its because of disease, or something along that line
to me it seems like any of the laws in the OT, basically because the people around them did it, it was considered wrong, thats it!

the people who wrote the bible up to jesuses time considered anyone who practiced anything from another religion wrong, even if it worked and made sense.
look at the law about cutting hair, only reason its there? because the egyptians would shave their heads

This is as I said above. I don't find that it is true in many cases if at all. God says keep holy the Sabbath. There are still many reasons why a religious person would benefit from doing this apart from what God says.

like what? sabbath means day of rest, a lot of christians don't do this, go to walmart on any sunday, tons of church goers are there buying stuff, thats not resting.

christians have no clue anymore what keeping the sabbath means, in fact they don't even have the day right

There are not so many reasons for a secular person to not work on Sunday or to attend church. But still this 'moral' is capable of being shown to Christians as 'good'.

but 99% of christians don't even follow this 'moral'

saterday is the sabbath after all
sunday was a worship day for pagan converts to christianity.

I am not going to get uptight about the 'before marriage' part. It is more about having sex without commitment. You I am sure can see that this would be immoral if a child will not be cared for as a result

what about those who don't care about marriage though? what if they love eachother so much but don't view marriage as anything more than an outmoded system?
are they any less committed?

Birth control does not make this problem disappear entirely. It is not fool proof, not safe for all women, not proven safe long term. There have been many bad varieties that had consequences to the fertility of female children. Then, of course, there is still that question of whether it is murder.

like what? even from a bit of reading about the generic ones theres nothing like you are discribing, sounds more like the minority, which happens, but its not a cause for alarm
as for abortion being murder, it is legal, so no it is not murder, please go look what murder is before calling abortion murder

There is still that question of whether sex SHOULD be used for fun. You will find that to some people, it is very important to save sexual activity for a commited relationship even for mental reasons. So yes, it is not empirical either way IMO, it depends on the individual's convictions. I don't think that people will practice abstinance without some sort of belief in its validity. (not just a God says so)

why not, it is fun! if sex isn't fun people wouldn't have sex very much.
sorry but most of the time those people who are saving themselves base it on thier religious beliefs, or some ingrained belief, theres no reasoned point to saving yourself for some unknown

people practice abstinance for a number of reasons, most of them based from religious reasons, if not all of them.

why do you say god said so is not a valid reason? thats the biggest reason for 90% of christians i've found


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by anastasia, posted 04-06-2007 2:36 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by anastasia, posted 04-09-2007 7:01 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 122 of 125 (394125)
04-09-2007 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ReverendDG
04-08-2007 4:03 AM


ReverendDG writes:

most of the time, its solely because they were taught it at some point

Where do you get your stats from? It's not that I have any real stats either, except the talks I have with people who are religious. The religious people I know DO understand their morality and follow it from agreement, not ignorance. I have no idea what the 'most' people do. Methinks they just ignore the morals they don't understand.

people say this but i'm of the belief that their upbringing and society has more to do with it than some bodyly warning

You say this but I have also seen otherwise. I have seen the more secular of girls turn completely 'religious' about their own offspring. I try to base my posts around experience, not a feeling, in these things.

tell that to the gay community, outside of a dusty ol' book, the anti-gay folks have nothing, other than the icky factor

Hm, what about the 'sex is for procreation' factor?

some wonder if its because of disease, or something along that line
to me it seems like any of the laws in the OT, basically because the people around them did it, it was considered wrong, thats it!

So you would rather not find any other answer than the one you made up?

like what? sabbath means day of rest, a lot of christians don't do this, go to walmart on any sunday, tons of church goers are there buying stuff, thats not resting.

christians have no clue anymore what keeping the sabbath means, in fact they don't even have the day right

Well, I for one do not work or shop on Sunday. Still, it is irrelevent to the conversation whether any Christian follows a 'rule'. There are Christians who do not have this rule, who do rest on Saturday, etc. There are also Christians who do not 'own' their morality, as in, believe it is worthy of following. As I said above, they do not understand the meaning of the morals.

but 99% of christians don't even follow this 'moral'

saterday is the sabbath after all
sunday was a worship day for pagan converts to christianity.

Don't try to educate me about Christianity! Sunday has become our Sabbath, Saturday is fine as well.

why do you say god said so is not a valid reason? thats the biggest reason for 90% of christians i've found

Well, do you think it is a valid reason? Do you think people should follow rules that they don't understand or agree with? 'God said so' is the biggest complaint that I have found against religious people!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ReverendDG, posted 04-08-2007 4:03 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 4242 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 123 of 125 (394129)
04-09-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Stile
04-07-2007 11:07 AM


Re: For important things, show rather than accept
Stile writes:

Here is where I disagree. Simply agreeing with something doesn't remove the "chance element" that it could be false. I don't see how that would work.

It has to do with the 'showing' that you mentioned. Some people could believe in a thing without proof of its 'goodness'.

Say God said, 'don't fly a plane tonight'. You might listen. If someone showed you that there would be bad weather, you would 'understand' the rule. There would be no chance element.

But that's my point. "Personal conviction of it's validity" isn't a good enough reason to hold a moral value. I can have "personal conviction" of the validity of beating on women. That doesn't make it right. I need to be able to show how beating on women is a good moral action. I think this is impossible, and easy to show that beating on women is a bad moral action.

Man, you are hard to please! You won't follow a moral because God said so, too chancy. Now you won't follow a moral because you believe it is valid! What WILL you follow? Well ok, I know you mean that YOUR conviction is useless without the concensus of society, but that is not the point. The morals of religion are well backed by society, as in they have a great amount of believers. Now obviously I could 'show' you a woman who enjoys being beaten, and you are free to determine if it is right or wrong in this case. I would still say it is wrong, but I couldn't physically show you!

You are lowering the definition of my term "show". I don't mean show as in "You should believe this because I say so" "Oh, okay, thanks for showing that to me." I mean show as in proving, and having evidence that cannot be misconstrued. Simply agreeing with someone isn't having it shown to you that something is good.

What? You must be able to see that something is good before you agree to do it! You must also be able to see that it is good in itself regardless of the circumstances. There are a lot of good things that we do that no one even notices.

Very true. How does this have any bearing whatsoever on people who do not think this way?

The point is Stile, that there is no empirical moral. They are all subjective. I don't think we all have to agree, but as long as I have enough reasons to do what I do involving sex, and you have enough to do what you do, these things can be said to be shown to us as good, rather than just accepted on faith. There will always be some element of chance, because morals are set up to be proactive rather than reactive. We don't know that there will be a bad consequence, but we believe that what we are doing is the best things we can do now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 04-07-2007 11:07 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Stile, posted 04-17-2007 9:53 AM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 124 of 125 (395650)
04-17-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by anastasia
04-09-2007 7:31 PM


Re: For important things, show rather than accept
anastasia writes:

It has to do with the 'showing' that you mentioned. Some people could believe in a thing without proof of its 'goodness'.

Say God said, 'don't fly a plane tonight'. You might listen. If someone showed you that there would be bad weather, you would 'understand' the rule. There would be no chance element.

I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but you're really mixing up the meaning of "show".

quote:
Say God said, 'don't fly a plane tonight'. You might listen. If someone showed you that there would be bad weather, you would 'understand' the rule. There would be no chance element.

Exactly. Showing them the bad weather is proving it to them, it is removing the chance, it is "showing" it to them.

quote:
Some people could believe in a thing without proof of its 'goodness'.

This is also true, but this is not "showing" it to anyone. This is only the first part. This is only equivalent to "Say God said, 'don't fly a plane tonight'. You might listen." That's it. Just because someone "might listen" or agrees with another person, does not mean that it has been shown to them. And therefore the "chance element" that it could be false is still there. Since it has not yet been shown.

Do you see how these two things are different?

You won't follow a moral because God said so, too chancy. Now you won't follow a moral because you believe it is valid! What WILL you follow?

Anything that can be shown to be valid, of course.

Well ok, I know you mean that YOUR conviction is useless without the concensus of society, but that is not the point. The morals of religion are well backed by society, as in they have a great amount of believers.

No, not at all. The mere concensus of society is even useless to back MY convictions. However, most concensus' of society can be shown. And when that is possible, that is when I agree with them, and that is when it is "good enough".

There are still socities that agree that black people are inferior. However, we can show that black people are people, and all people are eligible for the same rights and priveleges. Therefore, the mere social consensus of millions agreeing that black people are inferior is meaningless.

Now obviously I could 'show' you a woman who enjoys being beaten, and you are free to determine if it is right or wrong in this case. I would still say it is wrong, but I couldn't physically show you!

And because you cannot show me, I would not say it is wrong. However, determining if this women is being truthful, or somehow being coerced/forced to fake the enjoyment would be extremely difficult. Also, making sure the beating didn't go over her level of enjoyment into her level of non-enjoyment would also be incredibly difficult to control. So really there is much more information that is needed at this point.
Yet, taking your example at a theoretical face value for the point it's trying to convey... no, I don't think the beating of this woman is wrong in any way. And I think it's also wrong for you to attempt to stop it or put restrictions on it.
Why do you think you have the enlightenment to deprive this equal human-being of their right to find happiness?

What? You must be able to see that something is good before you agree to do it! You must also be able to see that it is good in itself regardless of the circumstances. There are a lot of good things that we do that no one even notices.

No, I cannot "see that something is good before I agree to do it". I generally assume so in many cases, though, in order to continue everyday life. But to actually "see" that something or anything is good, it must be shown to me. Either by myself, or by others.

The point is Stile, that there is no empirical moral. They are all subjective. I don't think we all have to agree, but as long as I have enough reasons to do what I do involving sex, and you have enough to do what you do, these things can be said to be shown to us as good, rather than just accepted on faith.

No, they cannot be "said to be shown to us as good" until they are shown to us to be good. You can believe it is, or assume it is, but you don't know if it's good or not until it can be shown to you. And I can easily show you how it is immoral for you to force your personal, non-empirical, subjective opinions on other people. But yes, as long as you are keeping your personal, non-empirical, subjective opinions to yourself, and your own life... that certainly is moral, or at least not-immoral.

There will always be some element of chance, because morals are set up to be proactive rather than reactive. We don't know that there will be a bad consequence, but we believe that what we are doing is the best things we can do now.

I fully agree with this. Which is exactly the reason why we can't force our morals on other people until we are able to show them why it is moral. And, well, once we do that, they'll just agree and we won't really be forcing anything on them anyway.

And this is why certain churches are acting incredibly immorally when they descriminate against gays, or black people, or having sex before marriage, or any other number of personal, non-empirical, subjective opinions they attempt to force on other people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by anastasia, posted 04-09-2007 7:31 PM anastasia has not yet responded

    
Rascaduanok
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 21
From: Save Warp
Joined: 05-02-2007


Message 125 of 125 (399411)
05-05-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by purpledawn
03-24-2007 12:18 PM


Re: Standard of Right and Wrong
purpledawn writes:

The secular world has standards of right and wrong.
Various groups religious and nonreligious have standards of right and wrong.
This board has standards of right and wrong.
Individuals even have their own standards of right and wrong.

Some people put more rules on themselves than others and I agree that doesn't make one "more moral" than someone who doesn't need as many rules.

I don’t believe it makes someone ‘more moral’ to believe in more rules, but I can see 2 different viewpoints, and I don’t know which I actually believe (though most likely siding with the latter):

  1. Religious law (I think mainly from an Islamic and Jewish viewpoint, having grown up with muslims, and discussing Judaism online for long periods of time) brings the entirety of life under the authority of God. This includes civil and domestic practices too. This elevates otherwise ordinary moral laws by giving it a Divine endorsement.
  2. If you worship God and submit completely, it can feel easy to believe that all morality comes from God. Which means that something morally acceptable only gains this status because of God’s endorsement of it. Accordingly if God suddenly told you that killing unbelievers (for example) equalled Good, then you would have to accept this and act on it, or else you would question the veracity of divine morality.

In this way, I feel more inclined to have a moral atheist (who believes in moral good because of his/her own reasoning) watching my back than a fervent religious believer who may very well turn into a slavering, mass–murdering rapist beast at the say–so of their God…


$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 03-24-2007 12:18 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019