Where do Morality and Ethics come from if not God?
. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
It is an example of a action that is always considered wrong in an absolute sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
Morality and "wrong" are always reducible to the code that deemed them so. They are never "irreducible".
At some point, they cannot be reduced any further. For instance, every moral code (except possibly Punisher1984) views murder as wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
Because such a moral code will ultimately hurt me and my loved ones.
So what? Their moral code says that hurting you and your loved ones is better for them and their loved ones. Both codes are equally right when vieewed from the position holding the moral code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
You are putting too much value in evolution in this case. Evolution is an explanation for how we got here, not what we SHOULD do. Any more than believing in gravity tells us that we SHOULD stay as close to the ground as humanly possible.
Actually I am just pointing out how silly it is to ascribe morals to an evolutionary principle. I can see times where murdering the competition so as to eliminate it would offer once society an extreme advantage over another yet murder is still universally viewed as wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
I am an individual, and a member of a society. I can use my mind and experience to determine how people should behave. I can try to affect how my society looks, I can be part of the "evolution" of my society's morals.
And you cannot complain when society rejects your morals and enforces theirs upon you. Your moral code and societies moral code are equal because they are based on exactly the same thing, what people believe. And people are notoriously selfish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
The problem is that everyone has a different idea on what the "best" morals should be. I don't think your chosen morals are the "best", just as you don't think mine are the "best" (otherwise you would choose them yourself). We are not likely to come to a complete agreement, but we can come to a consensus on many issues.
Why do you think God's morals, my morals, are not the best? What about them makes them unacceptable to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
This commentary is just as true on prehistoric men, ancient men, midieval men, and modern men. Why is it sad?
Because they have all missed the point about how God intended for us to live and instead chosen their own moral path. The evil we have inflicted on each other over the centuries based on our prefered moral codes is what is sad.
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
It is an example of a action that is always considered wrong in an absolute sense.
It looks like I misunderstood your position before.
On your view, a "universal" is an action that is always considered wrong (according to a certain moral code) regardless of circumstance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
At some point, they cannot be reduced any further. For instance, every moral code (except possibly Punisher1984) views murder as wrong.
"Murder is wrong" is actually a tautology, since murder is defined as a wrongful killing. Which killings are wrong differ greatly between moral codes.
In the same way "wrongful bed jumping" is also universally wrong in any moral code.
Word games aside, I don't think you will find any single action that all moral codes will agree upon one way or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
So what? Their moral code says that hurting you and your loved ones is better for them and their loved ones. Both codes are equally right when vieewed from the position holding the moral code.
You misunderstood me. I am not using my interests to convince "them" that their moral code is wrong. I am saying that it is ultimately in their interests to reject murder as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
Actually I am just pointing out how silly it is to ascribe morals to an evolutionary principle. I can see times where murdering the competition so as to eliminate it would offer once society an extreme advantage over another yet murder is still universally viewed as wrong.
To understand why murder is disadvantageous to humans, imagine two isolated tribes. In one murdering your tribesmen would be acceptable, while in the other it would not. Which tribe do you think has a better chance of long term survival?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
And you cannot complain when society rejects your morals and enforces theirs upon you. Your moral code and societies moral code are equal because they are based on exactly the same thing, what people believe. And people are notoriously selfish.
I can and will complain!
While individuals are selfish, as a group we will be more successful if we work together. To reach this end, each individual must feel safe, and be willing to give back to the collective. Enter reciprocal altruism. IE the golden rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
Why do you think God's morals, my morals, are not the best? What about them makes them unacceptable to you?
There are two problems.
One is that your source of morals, the Bible, is terribly ambiguous. Practically any position can be (and has been) supported using this source. as such, it is impossible to pinpoint any Christian position.
The other has to do with personal differences. I don't know where you stand on the issues, but I'm sure we'll find things to disagree upon. Homosexuality is usually a good place to start disagreeing with many Christians. Abortion is another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
Because they have all missed the point about how God intended for us to live and instead chosen their own moral path. The evil we have inflicted on each other over the centuries based on our prefered moral codes is what is sad.
But our disagreements stem from a value you probably hold dear - free will. We are free to decide if a certain moral code is the one we should follow, which is why subjectivity rules the land. I don't see this as sad, but as one of the most magnificent gifts we have as humans.
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
February 19th, 2009, 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
John W's comments are not relevant in this post, because John W does not have an opinion. John W. has instructed me not to consider his opinion on this matter, because he believes that opinions and experience are irrelvant. According to his logic all I need to do is read the Bible, I do not need to listen to him on this matter. Does anyone else have anything to say about this?
In fact John w has made it as the first person on my ignore list, since he has requested that so vehemtly with his proclamation that his opinion does not matter. Plus his post were so poorly thought out and poorly designed that it was drudgery to actually get through them. I have learned a lot these past couple of weeks. I can delete Truppenzwei's comments in my visitor messages when they are rude and inconsiderate. And putting john w on my ignore list, because that is exactly what he wants is actually killing two birds with one stone. :D
____
Thanks again for your "opinion" , your "experience", your.....Just like elbows, almost everyone has one.
"According to his logic all I need to do is read the Bible,.." -noguru
Not according to me-according to the Holy Bible.
"that his opinion does not matter."--noguru
That is correct, according to the book: Acts 17:2, 11
Don't believe me-I am a liar, idiot, moron, deceitful...(your words), and will let you down often. "Check it out in the book" and see what the LORD God says. Don't trust man.
"An open minded stance on beliefs would allow for people to see value in at least understanding different beliefs. So killing them would only be cheating oneself of the different perspective. Actually when I was an agnostic, this is exactly how I felt. Now that I am a theist I still think this makes sense."noguru
You confuse tolerance for ideas, with rationality, and continue to confuse objective truth, from an external standard, vs. subjective interpretation. And thus, all it is is your opinion, experience.....You determine truth from within your darkened, foolish heart(Romans 1:21-every one) , and reject the truth of the Holy Bible, and thus can "prove" anything is moral/immoral. You are a "moral free agent." We know:
"You should do what you think is right for yourself....."-noguru
"That statement summarizes the argument."-John W
"You are absolutely correct."noguru
"Who said there needs to be an external standard.?"-noguru
"An open minded stance..."-noguru
Translation. "All mushrooms are good....be open minded, be cultured......you are so mean spirited....so bigoted....so closed minded....try these mushrooms and be open minded about them....." No, mushrooms can kill you.
Thank you for distinguishing your "philosophy" from Christianity.
"An open minded stance..." is the opposite of Christianity-one way, one God, one redeemer, one Saviour, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one "the book"..........
The Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, Christianity is many things to many people. But one thing it is not: "tolerant" or "open minded."
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104561
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
February 19th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Jonh w, the content of your post while you are on my ignore list is exactly the way you want it. Your opinion is irrelevant. According to you, the Bible says your opinion is worthless.
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
February 19th, 2009, 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
Jonh w, the content of your post while you are on my ignore list is exactly the way you want it. Your opinion is irrelevant.
__
Thank you. At least you did not call me a liar, deceitful, an idiot, a moron, stupid, dishonest, one who has a "strategy of foolishness" with an "overbloated ego,a coward,slippery as an eel................this time.And I would not to join any "moral free agent club" anyways that would have me as a member!(sarcasm is a biblical principle, as is laughter-the LORD God saved me).
So can I assume you won't be sending me any money, since it is "immoral"?
I am on your ignore list, but you continue to "not ignore" me? You have a tendency to contradict yourself often.
Argument: The truth cannot be known
Question: Is this a true statement?
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
February 19th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
Jonh w, the content of your post while you are on my ignore list is exactly the way you want it. Your opinion is irrelevant. According to you, the Bible says your opinion is worthless.
___
"According to you, the Bible says your opinion is worthless"
This is true. That is why I quote scripture, and reason from it. You quote "you." That is you talkin', not the Holy Bible.
See the contrast.
Simple choice. I will take the Holy Bible's opinion.
It looks like I misunderstood your position before.
On your view, a "universal" is an action that is always considered wrong (according to a certain moral code) regardless of circumstance?
Yes. I am using the definition of absolute morals from Wiki. From past discussions with other folks, the wkiki definition seems to help cut across cross-talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
"Murder is wrong" is actually a tautology, since murder is defined as a wrongful killing. Which killings are wrong differ greatly between moral codes.
In the same way "wrongful bed jumping" is also universally wrong in any moral code.
There is an under lying principle in both cases that cannot be reduced even though the definition of what is wrongful may vary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
Word games aside, I don't think you will find any single action that all moral codes will agree upon one way or the other.
Probably not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
You misunderstood me. I am not using my interests to convince "them" that their moral code is wrong. I am saying that it is ultimately in their interests to reject murder as well.
Before or after the Hutu have killed all the Tutsi? Before or after the Serbs kill the Bosnian's? Before or after Islam kills all the infidels? It depends on what is the most interesting to them, eliminating "you" or stopping murders. They may see eliminating "you" as morally justified killing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
To understand why murder is disadvantageous to humans, imagine two isolated tribes. In one murdering your tribesmen would be acceptable, while in the other it would not. Which tribe do you think has a better chance of long term survival?
The one that doesn't kill itself off. But take those same two tribes, one believes killing the other is moral while the other believes living in peace is moral. Now which tribe stands a better chance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
I can and will complain!
While individuals are selfish, as a group we will be more successful if we work together. To reach this end, each individual must feel safe, and be willing to give back to the collective. Enter reciprocal altruism. IE the golden rule.
Depends on the size and motivation of the group. Investment bankers? Drug Cartels? Senators? Congress? Church groups? It is very easy to end up with a bunch of endlessly waring groups when each group is allowed to decide what is morally right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
There are two problems.
One is that your source of morals, the Bible, is terribly ambiguous. Practically any position can be (and has been) supported using this source. as such, it is impossible to pinpoint any Christian position.
I cannot deny that there is plenty of decent within the Church as to what is moral and what is not. Taking drinking. I enjoy a drink from time to time but I do not get drunk. Other denominations condemn me to hell for partaking. I think that Bible is not all that ambiguous. The Ten commandments are the basic principles upon which Godly morals are based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
The other has to do with personal differences. I don't know where you stand on the issues, but I'm sure we'll find things to disagree upon. Homosexuality is usually a good place to start disagreeing with many Christians. Abortion is another.
Just for the record. It is not a sin to be gay. It is as sinful to participate in gay sex as it is to partake in any sex outside of a married man and woman. Abortion as a from of birth control is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_duck
But our disagreements stem from a value you probably hold dear - free will. We are free to decide if a certain moral code is the one we should follow, which is why subjectivity rules the land. I don't see this as sad, but as one of the most magnificent gifts we have as humans.
-MD
I don't. We have so many moral codes they can never be resolved and we will gleefully kill for them. Within God's moral code there is still a great degree of freedom. I can't help but believe that if the entire world was on a common moral base, God's base, that there would be less overall violence.
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Slogan/motto:
THE CHAMPION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DEFENDER OF LIBERTY
Reputation:
February 19th, 2009, 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
Yes. I am using the definition of absolute morals from Wiki. From past discussions with other folks, the wkiki definition seems to help cut across cross-talking.
There is an under lying principle in both cases that cannot be reduced even though the definition of what is wrongful may vary.
Probably not.
Before or after the Hutu have killed all the Tutsi? Before or after the Serbs kill the Bosnian's? Before or after Islam kills all the infidels? It depends on what is the most interesting to them, eliminating "you" or stopping murders. They may see eliminating "you" as morally justified killing.
The one that doesn't kill itself off. But take those same two tribes, one believes killing the other is moral while the other believes living in peace is moral. Now which tribe stands a better chance?
Depends on the size and motivation of the group. Investment bankers? Drug Cartels? Senators? Congress? Church groups? It is very easy to end up with a bunch of endlessly waring groups when each group is allowed to decide what is morally right.
I cannot deny that there is plenty of decent within the Church as to what is moral and what is not. Taking drinking. I enjoy a drink from time to time but I do not get drunk. Other denominations condemn me to hell for partaking. I think that Bible is not all that ambiguous. The Ten commandments are the basic principles upon which Godly morals are based.
Just for the record. It is not a sin to be gay. It is as sinful to participate in gay sex as it is to partake in any sex outside of a married man and woman. Abortion as a from of birth control is wrong.
I don't. We have so many moral codes they can never be resolved and we will gleefully kill for them. Within God's moral code there is still a great degree of freedom. I can't help but believe that if the entire world was on a common moral base, God's base, that there would be less overall violence.
Morals are an individual thing. I think it is immoral to allow a merderer to spend 20 years in prison and then be released. The moral thing to me is to kill him. But I have an informed morality. To others my morality is barbaric. Morality is therefore subjective and not of God. Righteousness is of God not morality. My knowledge of the righteousness of God informs my moral judgment.
Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104561
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
February 20th, 2009, 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elected4ever
Morals are an individual thing. I think it is immoral to allow a merderer to spend 20 years in prison and then be released. The moral thing to me is to kill him. But I have an informed morality. To others my morality is barbaric. Morality is therefore subjective and not of God. Righteousness is of God not morality. My knowledge of the righteousness of God informs my moral judgment.
Very well said. I have had some of the same thoughts about murders and jail time. Although the circumstances regarding any murder(s) are quite varied. I was watching "Snapped" the other night and there was a woman who murdered her two sons. She had watched her mother-in-law die of Huntington's disease. This is an incurrable disease that is genetic and leads to a slow and horrible deterioration of the neurological system. Then she watched her husband die of the same disease for 13 years in a nursing home. Then her two sons got the disease. She waited until they were incapable of doing anything for themselves but they could still feel pain. The thing that set her off was when she came to visit one night and saw her son whimpering an trying to remove the catheter the nurses had placed in him. She shot both of them in their room in the nursing home.
I am not saying this is right. But her act of murder was for a much different reason than most other murders. Should she be judged by the same laws of murder as others?
Slogan/motto:
THE CHAMPION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DEFENDER OF LIBERTY
Reputation:
February 20th, 2009, 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
Very well said. I have had some of the same thoughts about murders and jail time. Although the circumstances regarding any murder(s) are quite varied. I was watching "Snapped" the other night and there was a woman who murdered her two sons. She had watched her mother-in-law die of Huntington's disease. This is an incurrable disease that is genetic and leads to a slow and horrible deterioration of the neurological system. Then she watched her husband die of the same disease for 13 years in a nursing home. Then her two sons got the disease. She waited until they were incapable of doing anything for themselves but they could still feel pain. The thing that set her off was when she came to visit one night and saw her son whimpering an trying to remove the catheter the nurses had placed in him. She shot both of them in their room in the nursing home.
I am not saying this is right. But her act of murder was for a much different reason than most other murders. Should she be judged by the same laws of murder as others?
I think so. There is no excuse for taking life from someone. If that is excusable then what is the next justification for the willful taking of innocent life.
Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?
I think so. There is no excuse for taking life from someone. If that is excusable then what is the next justification for the willful taking of innocent life.
I think you might want to look at how you say things a little more closely. You make this unqualified statement that directly contridicts what you originally said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elected4ever
Morals are an individual thing. I think it is immoral to allow a merderer to spend 20 years in prison and then be released. The moral thing to me is to kill him. But I have an informed morality. To others my morality is barbaric. Morality is therefore subjective and not of God. Righteousness is of God not morality. My knowledge of the righteousness of God informs my moral judgment.
So is there never an excuse for taking somebodies lifer or are there times when there is an excuse for taking somebodies life?
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Morals are an individual thing. I think it is immoral to allow a merderer to spend 20 years in prison and then be released. The moral thing to me is to kill him. But I have an informed morality. To others my morality is barbaric. Morality is therefore subjective and not of God. Righteousness is of God not morality. My knowledge of the righteousness of God informs my moral judgment.
I would say you have Old Covenant morality.
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Slogan/motto:
Manifest plainness, embrace simplicity, reduce selfishness, have few desires.
Reputation:
February 20th, 2009, 08:43 AM
Post #263. Someone? Anyone?
"In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
February 20th, 2009, 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elected4ever
Morals are an individual thing. I think it is immoral to allow a merderer to spend 20 years in prison and then be released. The moral thing to me is to kill him. But I have an informed morality. To others my morality is barbaric. Morality is therefore subjective and not of God. Righteousness is of God not morality. My knowledge of the righteousness of God informs my moral judgment.
__
Are you asserting that we must not make moral judgments?
Linear Mode
