Who's More Moral?

(bolding mine)I whole-heartedly agree with what you've said here (the bolding, anyway, and what follows). If you really do believe this, then I think our two moralities are a lot more similar then they are different.Although, I do find calling this an 'absolute' morality to be somewhat misleading. I'd go more for... a "constant guideline". Actually... 'guideline' is too soft. "Constant rule"? Perhaps? I dunno... I just call it my morality

I didn't mean to be cryptic. Here's a basic layout to my thought process:-Some theist morality is based on their God
-Their God cannot be shown to me, or another
-Without the ability to show that their God exists, there remains the possibility/chance, however small, that this God does not exist
-Therefore, any theist morality based on this, is based on some semblence (possibly very small, possibly not...) of chance
-My moral thoughts/ideas are too important to base them on anything I can't show to another person to be true I think "people" are moral. Some people are theists... some are atheists. Therefore... some theists are moral, some are not. And some atheists are moral, and some are not.I contend that important ideals such as morality should be based on that which we can show to others, and therefore "not made up". And never just accepted because someone says so (regardless of whether that someone believes in God or not).The structure of theism simply lends itself more easily to people trusting in "what other people say" over "what can be shown". The structure also allows for easy connections to morality... most holy books contain plenty of "thou shalls" and "thou shalt nots". This leads us to having a large number of people believing that moral high-ground is simply listening to their religion, and not actually giving any reasoning for it. Which is very dangerous.

I was born into a Catholic family. Well, my mom was (or is, I suppose) strongly Catholic. And my dad was (and still is...) weakly, um... I always forget... Protestant or Lutheran or something. My dad never made a fuss, we just weekly went to Catholic church as a family. Always said prayers before dinner, and before bedtime. Read the bible as a family on a Sunday-night basis. I was an alter boy at the local church. Grew into the head-alter boy, even servicing weddings and funerals. I was Baptized, had First-Communion and was Confirmed. I went to a Catholic grade-school, and a Catholic high-school.Three doors down from my house lived a Preacher for the local Baptist church/school. Their family had 3 sons, with whom I played with and was good friends with as I grew up. I was also active in their Baptist church. I went to Sunday school with them, I went to Sunday church with them (as well as with my family... as a family we usually went Saturday night). I played on their church baseball team. I'd help out and attend their church fellow-ship days... basically church "play-days" for the kids. I even became "saved" by accepting Jesus Christ into my heart one morning after their church when I asked the Pastor to do that for me.I never once felt like I was pressured to be a part of either church, or was being indoctrinated, or wasn't getting a full education (total opposite on that, actually). We had an amazingly liberal and nice Catholic Priest. The Baptist Pastor was rather strict and literal (no swearing, no rock music... like that) but it was my choice to hang out with those friends and spend time with them so I never felt it as overbearing or anything.But as for leaving it up to chance... it's as I explained it above. I understand that most (all?) theists believe there is no chance their God doesn't exist. Yet, the chance that it is false exists for me, and hence I do not understand how anyone can rest their ideals on something not provably-rooted in fact. Some people believe that something can be a fact without being able to reproduce it, or show it to another (any other) person. I do not believe this. Facts are things we can all be shown and all agree upon. Anything else is... not a fact, but interpretation of those facts some how.I need to base my important ideals on facts, to make sure I'm not even fooling myself. I cannot leave my ideals up to interpretations of those facts. If I did, I may be leaving my ideals up to someone elses interpretation, or maybe my own interpretation, but even then I still wouldn't know if my interpretation was valid or not. The basis for the morals. Why we have those morals. In religion.. it's possible that these religious morals could simply be a group of people's interpretation of facts from thousands of years ago. It may also be from an all powerfull God. Of course, we cannot prove, or show, either case. Which is my point, that it is left up to some amount of chance, or "hope" that it is right. Instead of being grounded on a foundation that we can show, and therefore "know" that it is right. Yes, but it also leads us to showing things to each other. Perhaps one day, yes. Perhaps even now, someone is capable of that. But, also, it can be shown that the baby is inside the woman. It can be shown that the woman could be in pain, or may die. It can also be shown that the pregnancy is very close to term, within days of occuring. It can also be shown that the pregnancy was a choice between two people, or shown that it was one person forcing themselves onto another.My point is, I would much rather leave the debate of abortion up to what people can show, or prove. Rather then leaving it up to "Well, I've heard that it's bad. So let's never do it." Yes, but some of those reasons are simply "because God says so". Or "because it was written in this here book". These particular reasons are simply unacceptable. Yet, in a religious sense, they somehow become extremely convincing to some people. I'm not saying that a theist isn't able to show anything In fact, I've said quite the opposite many times already. A theist should just have to show things are right as much as anyone else should before condemning or laying judgement on other people. I tried this with gay marriage... it didn't go so well. Let's try... sex before marriage. Why should this be immoral?-I can show you that sex before marriage can increase knowledge between two people about themselves. Therefore letting them make a better decision about whether or not they should be together.-I can show you that sex before marriage can be done safely... pregnancy precautions such as condoms or birth control pills. I can show you that niether of those options have any negative side affects. Most people don't get sick from their usage. And some women are even helped by the use of birth control pills for other things (menstruation cycle).-I can show you that NOT having sex before marriage can lead to problems within a marriage that the couple would have been able to deal with before the marriage if they had of been open with each other. Sexual problems as in.. if one partner actually dislikes sex, and the other finds out that they crave it... this will not go over well within a marriage.I'm not saying that ALL couples should have sex before they get married. I'm saying it shouldn't be a moral no-no for them to, if they so decide upon it.

Take your time, that's the benefit of a system like this 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. 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.But the point is, I don't think beating women is a bad thing because of some "personal conviction". I have that personal conviction because I can show how all people are equal, and how women are people. Without having that ability to show your personal convictions are correct, we're left with the possibility that our personal convictions are simply wrong, and even evil. 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. So you agree then, that sex before marriage between two careful, loving, consenting adults is not immoral? Because nothing you have said displays otherwise.Yes, I know birth control pills don't work for everyone. That is irrelevant. People allergic to latex can't use condoms either. So? Those are not the only possible methods of birth control. How does that possibly make careful, loving, consenting sex before marriage immoral? What? Using birth control is murder? Preventing conception is murder? Any girl how doesn't have sex once per ovulation cycle is committing murder? You've got to be joking on that one. Yes. But that is subjective. And regardless of you (or anyone else) thinking sex should not be fun, means nothing for someone else thinking it should be used for fun. Very true. How does this have any bearing whatsoever on people who do not think this way? No, this is wrong. It cannot be shown empirically (or, at least, you haven't) why it should be considered immoral. Therefore, it should not be considered immoral. Careful, loving, consentual sex before marriage should not be considered immoral.It's like.. eating an apple. Eating an apple doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore is not immoral. It's just something people do.Careful, loving, consentual sex before marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore is not immoral. It's just something that careful, loving, consentual adults do.In fact, considering it immoral, when it should not be, is in itself an immoral act. This causes you to judge people needlessly. Someone thinking they are worse, when they really are doing nothing wrong.

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