|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without god | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar,to Dawn Bertot writes: What kind of sense does this make? How could the creator of all seen and unseen need a dope slap from a human? If the Bible actually says this much, it obviously is mans writing...and flawed in wisdom at that.Why do you bring stuff like this up? The only explanation I would even want to believe would be God in the role of Loki the trickster, making man responsible for correcting the errors of a trickster.
But the Bible says that even God does not have all the information or infinite wisdom and sometimes needs a dope slap from man to behave morally. I gotta ask yet again, have you ever actually read the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I finally have a bit of time.
Dogmafood writes: For the action to be considered selfish all or most of the benefits are clearly identified as belonging to the actor. When some of the benefit is received by some other person then the action is called kind or generous. When all or most of the benefit is received by another then the action is perceived as selfless.My key point is that there are benefits to the selfless actor that go unrecognised. Mostly by the observer but also by the actor. When you give up your resources to the obvious benefit of others you also gain less obvious benefits for yourself. Such as a sense of having done a good thing. It is a good thing, in your opinion, because you imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action. That sense of having done a good deed is more rewarding than we acknowledge on the surface and it would be because acknowledging it detracts from the idea that it is a good deed. OK, so we get a good feeling when we have done the right thing. Well, why is that? Why should we feel good for doing the right thing? IMHO it is because we had a sense of morality in the first place. The good feeling is a by product of having morality. How many people feel resentful when they are placed in a position of having to do the right thing, maybe because people are watching and they don’t want to lose face? The good feeling isn’t in all people. Some people have a higher degree of morality than others obviously. The feelings are the result of morality not the cause of it.
Dogmafood writes: By that standard most of what we do is immoral. For example, when you choose to turn on your air conditioner instead of sending the electricity money (or the money to buy an air conditioner) to someone who could use it for food or shelter. Any resources that we spend on anything that is not essential to our survival are spent immorally. (Run that one past the marketing department!) If that definition of morality is valid then morality is mostly absent from society. I don’t disagree with that. In my view morality is about having a heart that actually wants to move away from that model. I know that I sit in my nice comfortable home in the full knowledge that there are people who don’t have a home at all. I just came home from a nice dinner with my wife in a Thai restaurant knowing that a huge percentage of the world is starving. I live peacefully and safely whereas many live in constant fear for their life. All this is true but other than the nice easy safe thing of sending money to the third world as well as being a rep for an African home for young women I do nothing. I am far closer to being as moral a person as a mass murderer than I am to what I really should be. On the other hand though we do have the ability to overcome to a small degree our instinct for selfishness and we are on occasion capable of even completely selfless behaviour.
GDR writes: In my view morality all boils down to whether or not our actions are selfish or unselfish.Dogmafood writes:
Again, morality isn't what you do. What you do is the result of your morality.
In my view it boils down to people doing what they honestly believe is the right thing to do. Dogmafood writes: I am still curious as to where this idea of 'rising above' comes from. I believe our basic instinct is to consider the self first and in order to do the selfless thing, (to act in someone else’s best interest at personal cost), we have to rise above that basic instinct.
Dogmafood writes: The most basic drive that I can spot is one of self preservation. That is what drives us and that is what we ultimately refer to when we decide what to do. That is where our hearts live. But self preservation is not as clear cut as it may seem at first blush. There is an assessment of the quality of our existence that usurps mere existence from the pinnacle of our desires. It really isn't much fun to be the king of the hill all by yourself. That is beautifully written, and is consistent I think with both of our points of view. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But it is not a matter of what you want to believe, rather it is what the Bible actually says.
You know right from wrong just as any God might, you simply don't like what your own innate knowledge of right a wrong tells you.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why do teachers ask questions? To get the students to think of the answers themselves, maybe? How could the creator of all seen and unseen need a dope slap from a human? If "God" is being portrayed as a dope that needs a slap, people should question the portrayal, maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Like my house is just a manifestation of bricks? Your point, if you have one, is getting continually more confused and obscure. Dr DA, right and wrong are not real things. Matter in motion cannot produce right and wrong, even if emotions are real things. If you dont believe me, show us what right is accross the board (reality) Show us how you establish this point. What formal argument do you use to explain what Wrong from a moral standpoint, actually is or is not Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Well ok then, until this infinite wisdom comes along, I guess we'll have to make do with what we have - human wisdom. Again that is not the point try to pay close attention to that which you need to respond. I have in logical fashion demonstrated why a morality, relative or otherwise, does actually exist. If indeed this is a debate website, your obligation would be to respond to what I have actually set out, then show why it is faulty. Ill give you an example of how debate actually works. Ive stated that for murder to be murder, that which is objectively wrong, not just a concept. You would need to demonstrate why human life is more sacred from the standpoint of reality, than animal life. That is, why it is Right, actually and objectively Right, not just as a concept, to take life unjustifiedly and premedtadedlly without malice of forethought. Now you need to in an objective and logical way, respond exacally to what I have set out. I promise you that if you did, I would return the favor
I note you still haven't provided us with an example of what this absolute morality actually IS. Could it be because you haven't a bloody clue? Ill try again. For an objectively reality to exist, you would need knowledge, the likes of which could not be added to. The likes of which, a better decison could not be added to to make it more right or less wrong Since you live in an environment where you dont possess this type of knowledge, you cannot know what is actually right or wrong If you do not believe in God, you are maintaining that you believe that there is not enough evidence to establish that idea. I believe there is. But that is not the point of this thread. I would ne happy to discuss that at any other point Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dawn Bertot writes: I have in logical fashion demonstrated why a morality, relative or otherwise, does actually exist. If indeed this is a debate website, your obligation would be to respond to what I have actually set out, then show why it is faulty. It's a measure of how clearly you've set out your arguments that no matter how often I read the above sentences, I can't make them make sense. Did you mean does NOT actually exist? If you actually mean that you have shown that morality DOES exist, then yippee, perhaps you'll now attempt a proof that my car exists. It would make it so much more satisfying to drive. I have no idea why you are making such a mess of this. Morality clearly exists. It's relative and changes over time and between cultures. You are unable to say what an absolute morality would actually look like if it did exist or show that it exists at all. Come back when you can. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: That is, why it is Right, actually and objectively Right, not just as a concept, to take life unjustifiedly and premedtadedlly without malice of forethought. I've already stated a system in this very thread, if you'd like to take a look, see Message 114Here's the basic definitions: quote: Using these definitions, it is objectively Right to kill someone if they want to be killed (like in that renaissance movie I can't really remember where the guy with the long-gun shot the dude in the head who was being burned alive... or in certain honourable killings like a Seppuku or other (possibly assisted) suicide kind of thing...). It is also objectively Wrong to kill someone if they don't want to be killed (like pretty much every killing ever). You still havn't answered my questions to you from a long while back:
quote: Or maybe I've just missed where you did describe it. If so... can you point me to a specific post, please? If it's actually so prevalent, shouldn't we all know about it? Why do people not agree on what actually is moral? Your absolute standard doesn't seem able to explain this basic fact. I think it's because morality simply is confusing. It's confusing because it's based on other people's subjective feelings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: My view is that God created a world that was designed to be good but with free will the possibility of evil was left open. God has apparently chosen to calibrate the morality-scale such that evil exists. Presumably he could have created a scale which includes far worse than evil (lets call it evil++). The scale of man's ability to do wickedness could have been even greater than it is if God had wanted us to have an even greater level of freewill. I mean presumably no man can be as evil as Satan himself (whether Satan is real or just a concept of ultimate evil is irrelevant to this). So it would seem God has felt it necessary to restrict our freewill in terms of our ability to commit possible evilness. He chose to limit our freedom to just evil. My point is this - If there is going to be a limit imposed, which there must be, why not stop at indifference rather than evil? Rather than create good and evil why not narrow the scale so that the only possibilities are indifference and escalating degrees of good? You still get freewill but you don't get evil. The worst someone can be is indifferent. I put it to you that God should have calibrated his scale so as to make evil unnecessary for freewill. We can only conclude that God actually wants us to be able to be evil. Evil isn't logically necessary, any more than evil++ is logically necessary, for freewill in the way you are asserting. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I mean presumably no man can be as evil as Satan himself (whether Satan is real or just a concept of ultimate evil is irrelevant to this). The Bible does not make Satan out as an evil character and does not sh0ow Satan as having free will. Rather Satan is God's tester and tempter, doing only God's will.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In which case it is God's will that there be evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay. I have no problem with that assertion.
But I don't see how you get that position from what I posted.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Rather Satan is God's tester and tempter, doing only God's will. Does Satan exemplify evil? If not then I think we are talking about different concepts of the thing commonly referred to as "Satan"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Does Satan exemplify evil? Not according to the Bible. Evil is simply a human construction just as good is simply a human construction.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Just as God is simply a human construction...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024